Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL

MERSEY RIVER BOARD BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Independence

1. Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what further action Her Majesty's Government are intending to take to solve the problem of Southern Rhodesia.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): The next step is to discuss the problem of Southern Rhodesia's independence with Mr. Ian Smith. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited Mr. Smith to come to London for that purpose and we are awaiting his reply.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Secretary of State not aware that Mr. Ian Smith really represents only a minority of a minority and that if there is going to be peaceful development towards an agreed independence the other political leaders must be

consulted? What is the Secretary of State doing towards that end? Is he pressing for the political leaders, like Mr. Nkomo, to be released forthwith and for the constitutional conference to be held at which all the political groups are represented?

Mr. Sandys: There is a later Question to the Prime Minister on that point.

Sir C. Osborne: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this very difficult problem would be solved more easily if we stopped niggling so much about it in this House?

Mr. Bottomley: Does not the Secretary of State think it rather farcical that just two hours after the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, at which the leaders of Commonwealth countries had urged in strong terms that Her Majesty's Government should do something about Southern Rhodesia, the Prime Minister should appear at a Press conference and treat the matter so light-heartedly as a mere nothing and about which he proposed to do nothing?

Mr. Sandys: I do not accept that description at all.

Education

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what offers of assistance towards secondary and technical education in Southern Rhodesia Her Majesty's Government have made since 1962.

Mr. Sandys: In 1962 we provided a loan of £355,000 for African education, and we have recently made a gift of £1,850,000 for the University College in Salisbury. We have recently told the Southern Rhodesia Government that we would be willing to discuss with them the provision of assistance to accelerate the expansion of education including administrative training for Africans.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there are now 25,000 Africans who are ready for further education, that another 500 teachers are required, and that this number will rise by about 5,000 a year? Can he explain to the House why we are so parsimonious towards Southern Rhodesia and so generous to other countries in this matter of development?

Mr. Sandys: As I said, we have made a proposal to assist in education. The Southern Rhodesian Government have shown interest in our proposal, and we shall be discussing the matter with them further.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we are not unsympathetic to the provision of educational help for Southern Rhodesia, some of us have in mind the fact that there are other Colonial Territories for which we have a direct responsibility and in respect of which our record of educational help is not nearly adequate? Will he at least assure the House that there will be no question of providing this educational assistance in advance of his consultation with Mr. Ian Smith and before an assurance from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that there will be a constitutional advance towards majority rule?

Mr. Sandys: The party opposite has always told us that we should not provide aid with strings. That is what he is now proposing.

Dame Irene Ward: In respect of the grants which are given to various territories for educational advance, does my right hon. Friend agree that the education provided ought to be for both boys and girls, and men and women? Is not that very important in developing the new world?

Mr. Sandys: I am not aware of any sex discrimination.

KENYA

Land (Resettlement Scheme)

Sir A. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will now state the further proposals agreed with the Kenya Government for financial assistance in dealing with the problem of mixed farming areas, in addition to the present land settlement programme under which farms in selected areas are purchased from Europeans to provide smallholdings for Africans.

Mr. Longden: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement

on the review of the Million Acre Scheme in Kenya.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will now make a statement about the future of the Million Acre Resettlement Scheme in Kenya and the amount of additional financial support Great Britain will be contributing.

Sir H. Oakshott: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will now make a further statement about assistance in dealing with mixed farming areas in Kenya, in addition to the farms being dealt with under the present land settlement programme.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he is aware that there is much land outside the Million Acre Resettlement Scheme in Kenya suitable for resettlement; and whether he will introduce proposals for an extension of the scheme.

Mr. Sandys: Consideration of this difficult question is proceeding. I am having further discussions about it with Kenya Ministers in London this week.

Sir A. Hurd: May we take it that Ministers in Kenya are agreed with Her Majesty's Ministers here that the problem of the European mixed farms is an urgent one and should be solved as soon as possible? Does my right hon. Friend hope to make a statement before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Sandys: I hope that we may be able to reach some conclusion before the Recess, in which case I will see that the House is informed.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision on the Ol Kalu salient has been pending for a long time and that there are at least 100 additional compassionate cases which should be assisted to leave Kenya? Will he give consideration to this matter as well as to phase 2 of the Million Acre Scheme?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir.

Sir H. Oakshott: Will my right hon. Friend accept, in his efforts to reach a satisfactory conclusion in what is really a very difficult and also a very urgent problem, that he will command very wide support? Does my right hon. Friend


realise that what most of us have in mind is the provision of some scheme in the interests of Kenya which will induce people to stay in the country and not leave it?

Mr. Sandys: I recognise the urgency of this matter, and I agree with my hon. Friend's last remark.

Mr. Turton: Does my right hon. Friend realise that a month ago he told us that he was considering these proposals, and that the delay is doing incalculable harm both to the economy of Kenya and to the position of European mixed farmers who are uncertain about their future? Will he get an early decision on this matter?

Mr. Sandys: Yes, Sir, I certainly will.

COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND COLONIES

Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will state the latest position reached in negotiation with Governments of the Commonwealth over the proposed revision of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. John Tilney): We have put precise proposals to other Commonwealth Governments and are now waiting for their comments.

Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is rather disappointing that no revision of this Act can now take place during this Parliament, even though negotiations have been going on for more than a year? Would my hon. Friend agree that there could be an embarrassing situation over a political fugitive at any time because the Act is so out of date? Will he ensure that when the new Conservative administration is formed in October absolute priority is given to legislation on this subject?

Mr. Tilney: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that this is not a simple question. We have circulated detailed proposals. The subject is highly complex and cannot be rushed but will, no doubt, be dealt with early in the next Parliament.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been disgracefully long delays about this? Is he also aware that the new Labour Administration which will be formed after the election will show an example of expedition in getting the Act revised?

Mr. Tilney: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that other Governments have to be consulted. We are now awaiting their comments.

Education

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what consideration he has given to introducing compulsory education for children between the ages of 5 and 15 years in the territories for which he is responsible; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): The education policy in each territory is decided by the Government concerned in the light of local circumstances and of the resources available.

Mr. Dempsey: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the resources available are determined to some extent by the assistance which may be forthcoming from Her Majesty's Government? Will he realise that if we are to overcome the challenge of tribal traditions in achieving the democratic concept of the Commonwealth, the finest way to accomplish this is by way of education? Is it not time that he gave us something more practical instead of indulging in platitudes?

Mr. Fisher: We have given something much more practical—we have given money. We have given £13 million for primary and secondary education in the last five years, and £13·9 million for technical and higher education. This is always a matter of priorities. There are other social services and also the claims of economic development which is needed to increase revenue.

Colonial Office (Name)

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will take


the necessary action to change the name of his Department to that of Commonwealth Relations and British Protectorates Overseas.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Lewis: If the Secretary of State will not agree to the suggestion contained in the Question, will he find some other way of getting rid of the word "Colonies" from his administration? [HON. MEMBERS: "Silly."] It is not silly, because our friends from overseas do not like being called colonials, in view of what has happened in the past. Could not the right hon. Gentleman find another way of describing his Department?

Mr. Sandys: As the House knows, the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office are due to be merged as soon as possible after 1st July next year. In the interval, we shall be giving thought to what is the most appropriate name for the combined Department, but I must say straight away that I am not attracted by the hon. Member's suggestion.

ADEN

Radfan Tribal Leaders (Communications)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will place in the Library the text of the communications from the Radfan tribal leaders to the British High Commissioner in Aden in the course of 1963.

Mr. Sandys: No such communications were received.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is claimed by the Radfan members that they were prepared to join the Federation provided they were not part of the State of Dahla? In these circumstances, can he publish some communication or other information so that the House can judge whether it was necessary to involve British troops in the fighting at Radfan?

Mr. Sandys: I cannot invent communications, even to please the right hon. Gentleman.

BRITISH GUIANA

United Nations Mission

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what action is to be taken by Her Majesty's Government on the proposal of the United Nations Special Committee on Colonialism that a three-member committee of good offices should visit British Guiana to assist in restoring harmony and peaceful conditions.

Mr. Sandys: We have taken note of it.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman content to allow the present critical situation in British Guiana to continue, with emergencies, with arrests, and with killings? What is his constructive proposal for a settlement of this problem? As he has refused a Commonwealth mission of good will, why refuse a United Nations mission of good will?

Mr. Sandys: I agree that a little more good will in British Guiana would be a nice thing, but I do not think that further missions are likely to create it. As regards the proposal for a Commonwealth mission, in which I know some hon. Members have some interest, as the communiqué showed, this was discussed at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Meeting, but there were widely differing views about the wisdom of such action.

Police and Security Forces

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he is aware that there is a lack of confidence in the political and racial impartiality of the police and security forces in British Guiana; and what steps he is taking to increase public confidence.

Mr. Fisher: I know that the Police have been accused of partiality, but these accusations are quite unjustified. On the contrary, the British Guiana Police have done and are doing a fine job in very difficult circumstances. In recruitment to the Police Force and to the new Special Service Unit care is being taken to ensure that recruits are not drawn predominantly from any one racial group.

Mrs. Hart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his whole Department is being exposed to charges of the gravest arrogance and deliberate unwillingness to see what is happening in British Guiana when he gives an Answer like that? Is he aware that many persons have been imprisoned without any charges being made against them, and that at the same time there are people who are not in prison but who are known by the public in British Guiana to have committed many of the outrages? Will he look at the way in which recruitment is carried out so that it is of such a kind that there can be greater confidence by that section in British Guiana which does not have any at the moment?

Mr. Fisher: The racial imbalance is due to the fact that in the past there have been insufficient Indian recruits because they do not particularly like the disciplined way of life and are often not of the right physique. Over the last two years recruitment has been on a strict basis of parity between the two main races. If the hon. Lady talks about increasing public confidence in British Guiana, I think that that might be helped if hon. Members refrained from making quite unjustifiable assertions of this kind in the House of Commons.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is my hon. Friend aware that the police and the security forces in British Guiana are behaving excellently and have an admirable record? Will he back them to the limit of his ability and do his best to counteract the misrepresentations from hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is right, and we shall certainly back them to the full.

Detained Persons

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will arrange that the 13 African and 20 non-African members of the P.P.P. of British Guiana, who are among 34 individuals at present imprisoned there, shall be either charged and tried, or released at once.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies why the Deputy

Premier of British Guiana, Mr. Brindley Benn, and other elected representatives who have been arrested were not brought before the courts immediately and indicted under the Criminal Law so that they might be given an opportunity to defend themselves.

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies how many persons are now detained in British Guiana; for how long they have been detained; when they will be charged; and when they are likely to be tried.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies how many persons are now detained without trial in British Guiana.

Mr. Sandys: Thirty-six persons are detained under emergency regulations. The period of their detention varies between four and five weeks. Three are being charged with sedition. No charges have yet been brought against the remainder.

Mrs. Hart: Why is this so? How can it be justified that a British Governor, with emergency powers, can retain in prison people who are well known to have tried their best to serve the interests of their country—whatever may be the opinion of the Minister—without making charges against them? Is not this the most gross form of old-fashioned colonialism? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect to have a possible solution in British Guiana unless he shows some understanding of what is expected in standards of behaviour and standards of conduct from the British Government themselves?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think the hon. Lady quite understands what emergency regulations are for.

Mr. S. Silverman: What are they for?

Mr. Sandys: For the public safety. It would be unusual to bring to trial people detained under emergency regulations. In cases where it is possible to make a charge and to produce witnesses who are not afraid to give evidence, those people would, of course, be arrested and charged under the normal criminal code. The reason why they are not so charged is because those circumstances do not exist.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the detention of the Deputy Premier and four Elected Members of the Legislative Assembly has destroyed the majority of the Government of British Guiana? Is it not vital that these men and women should be charged so that they can defend themselves, otherwise the whole democratic system will be in ruins if the majority is destroyed by arbitrary arrests of this description?

Mr. Sandys: I think that I have explained the situation. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings on these matters. He is correct in saying that the majority of the Government in the Legislature has been upset by this situation, but I would point out that the right to detain without trial was included in the emergency powers assumed by Dr. Jagan's Government—the hon. Gentleman is referring to Dr. Jagan's majority—in the emergency both in 1962 and in 1963.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that so long as policies of this kind are pursued our protests about what happens under dictatorships become hypocritical? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government began to learn a little from history? Will not they have a look at what happened in Ireland, Nyasaland, Kenya and Cyprus and realise that sooner or later they will have to go back on those policies, as they had to do in the case of every territory that I have mentioned?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member would do well to look at his history a little. There is no resemblance whatever between the struggles against colonial Powers in certain other territories and what is going on in British Guiana, where two sections of the population are killing each other, night by night. I consider that the Governor, with the full support of the British Government, should do everything in his power to protect innocent people from being murdered.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Is it not a fact that these charges of colonialism are entirely inaccurate in this context, and also that every emerging Commonwealth country on becoming independent has immediately reintroduced arrangements

for emergency arrest and detention without trial—in every case more severe than the arrangements of the outgoing British administration?

Mr. Bottomley: I recognise that exceptional measures are necessary in Southern Rhodesia, but does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should be seen to administer justice fairly? In the circumstances, will not he speedily submit the cases of those detained to a tribunal for investigation?

Mr. Sandys: There is a tribunal, and it is operating.

Sir S. McAdden: I should like to tell my right hon. Friend that there is great concern on both sides of the House about a situation in which people are imprisoned without trial, but can my right hon. Friend clear up one doubt in my mind? Do the figures to which his attention has been drawn refer to British Guiana—or to Ghana?

Mr. Bottomley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many cases have been before the tribunal?

Mr. Sandys: Not without notice.

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what arrangements have been made to assist families in British Guiana who are suffering hardship as the result of relatives being detained without trial.

Mr. Fisher: The salaries of detainees paid from Government funds are continuing. The Social Assistance Department are investigating whether the families of other detainees are in need.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that, whatever may be the logic of the argument for detention without trial, the suffering of this must not be visited upon the relatives of the people who are detained and that we are glad to see that steps have been taken to alleviate any suffering? Will the Minister, however, make every effort to ensure that the investigation is speeded up and that the suffering is alleviated as soon as possible?

Mr. Fisher: Yes. Recommendations to the Governor from the Assistance Department are expected very soon and the Governor has power to charge expenditure connected with the regulations against the resources of British Guiana.

Situation

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will make a further statement on the situation in British Guiana.

Mr. Loughlin: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement on the present situation in British Guiana.

Mr. Sandys: Since my statement a month ago there have been a series of further acts of inter-racial violence. The Governor has made new regulations and some additional troops have been sent to reinforce the garrison.

Mr. Edwards: Is the Secretary of State aware that there seems to be overwhelming evidence of massive American intervention in British Guiana? Will he investigate the activities of the American Central Intelligence Agency, whose agents seem to be able to move in and out of British Guiana without any difficulty? Does he agree that since the emergency has been imposed 150 people have been killed, and that there never was such a situation in British Guiana until democracy was completely eliminated from this area?

Mr. Sandys: Is the hon. Member really suggesting that American agents are killing people in British Guiana?

Mr. Edwards: Yes, I do.

Mr. Sandys: That is a monstrous suggestion.

An Hon. Member: The Government are creating another Cuba.

Mr. Brockway: What is the Secretary of State's constructive proposal to deal with the situation in British Guiana? He cannot possibly be content with it as it is. Is he not now prepared to consider a United Nations mission of good will? If he is not prepared to accept either a Commonwealth or a United Nations mission of good will, what is the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to deal with the situation in British Guiana, which is the result of his own administration and is resulting in the killing of human beings?

Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member asked exactly the same supplementary question

on Question No. 6 and I answered it then. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Minister did not answer it."]

Mr. M. Foot: Does not the Minister realise that there could be nothing more provocative than his reiterating that he does not propose to lift his finger to try to influence the desperate situation in British Guiana? Even if he rejects the proposals from Dr. Eric Williams and others, has he no single proposal of his own to try to deal with the situation? Is that what he is telling the House of Commons at the end of his whole period of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Sandys: I explained fully my policy and my views about how we should deal with the situation when we had a half day's debate on the subject. Nobody from the benches opposite suggested—[HON. MEMBERS: "What are your suggestions?"]—any alternative policy—

Mr. Brockway: Yes, we did.

Mr. Sandys: —which stood any chance of solving this problem.

Mr. Bottomley: If the suggestion is that we suggested anything other than that law and order should prevail, the Secretary of State is quite right. We did, however, suggest ways in which he could tackle the problem. One suggestion was to send out a Commonwealth team, which at that time, I think, could have done some good.

Mr. Sandys: We go on having this suggestion about a Commonwealth team. We have had a team from Ghana and efforts have been made by the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and the Premier of Barbados. They have all tried their hand at this, and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers collectively discussed it but were unable to produce any suggestions about how we could handle the matter which would stand a better chance of securing good results. I am sure that what we must do is try to maintain law and order and proceed to the elections, the preparations for which are going ahead. There has been registration on a considerable scale and I hope that we shall be able to preserve law and order sufficiently to hold the elections in the autumn as planned.

Households (Searches)

Mr. Milne: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he is aware that household equipment is being removed from homes searched by troops during the present emergency in British Guiana; and what steps he will take to relieve the hardship thus caused.

Mr. Fisher: I assume that the Question refers to iron piping used for blowing domestic fires. Iron piping has been used to make firearms and pipe grenades and any of this piping found during searches is therefore confiscated. This should not cause hardship as bamboo and other hollow stems are readily available and can be used instead.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that we are glad that investigations have been made into this matter and to receive his assurance that alternative methods have been produced by the authorities to alleviate this suffering?

Emergency Regulations (Flogging)

Mr. M. Foot: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make a statement on the recent orders issued by the Governor of British Guiana about penalties to be imposed on those convicted of possessing illegal arms and ammunition.

Mr. Wade: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what instructions he has given to the Governor of British Guiana regarding the reintroduction of flogging as a punishment in the Colony.

Mr. Sandys: The emergency regulations made on 23rd May on the advice of Guianese Ministers provided a variety of penalties for looting and kindred offences. On 7th July the Governor added the illegal possession of arms, ammunition and explosives to the list of offences covered by the earlier regulations. No change was made in the nature of the penalties prescribed.

Mr. Foot: Whoever may have supported proposals of this kind in the past, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he was asked to approve these methods of barbarism? Does he think that it can assist in establishing democracy in British Guiana for the British Govern-

ment and Governor to be a party to the imposition of flogging and life imprisonment, punishments which are more reminiscent of the slave trade than anything to do with democracy?

Mr. Sandys: First, as to the question of the Governor being associated with this, I should like to point out that these penalties are included in the normal criminal code of British Guiana. My second point is that the application of these penalties to offences under the Emergency Regulations was introduced by the locally-elected Ministers of British Guiana and that the Governor was merely introducing that in accordance with constitutional practice. It was his duty to make whatever regulations the elected Ministers ask for What he has done is to add—I should have thought, reasonably—to the list of offences which carry these penalties, and which previously included looting, the illegal possession of arms, ammunition and explosives.

Mr. Wade: Does the Minister really think that the use of flogging can in any way help to resolve the conflict? Does it not play into the hands of these who are trying to blame Britain and who are suggesting that Britain is adopting reactionary measures? Surely, the introduction of flogging is about the worst thing to do.

Mr. Sandys: The kind of murder and violence that is going on there is very reactionary. I believe that whatever measures are necessary to save life, to prevent murder and to bring to an end this reign of fear and terror are justified. As I have said, these penalties are already included in the criminal code of the country and have been proposed by the elected representatives of the people in British Guiana.

Mr. Bottomley: Is not Her Majesty's Government's name involved in this, too? The Secretary of State takes upon himself many responsibilities for British Guiana, and I should have thought that in this case he could have called for the end of flogging. Is he aware that at the independence celebrations in Malawi, when Britain's stock was very high, this news was received and shocked every African there present?

Mr. Sandys: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did his best to explain the true facts.

Mr. Bottomley: I did. I was ashamed.

Mr. Sandys: I hardly think that at a time when racial murders are taking place night after night it is the right moment to reduce penalties for violence.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: We ought to get this matter into proper perspective. Would my right hon. Friend care to give the House, by one method or another, a list oil the independent countries which have reintroduced flogging since independence, including flogging for simple offences such as larceny?

Mr. M. Foot: Is it the Secretary of State's desire, as it has been the desire of some previous Secretaries of State, to abolish flogging throughout British territories? Why does he try to shelter behind somebody else's decision? Would he tell us whether he is in favour of flogging as a penalty in British Guiana and, if he is, does he recognise that he convicts himself of barbarism out of his own mouth?

Mr. Sandys: I have made my position perfectly clear, and I have nothing to add.

BERMUDA

Ferry Point Bridge

Mr. F. M. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies when Ferry Point Bridge in Bermuda was completed.

Mr. Fisher: Construction has not begun because the U.S. Government have not been able to get Congress to vote the money for it.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that this was a complete comprehensive obligation which was undertaken without any strings by the American Government during the war? Is he further aware that I have been asking this question for six or seven years and I have always been told that I have no reason to doubt the good faith of the American Government because they will carry out this project? May I be told when my good faith in the intentions of the American Government should lapse, as I am now approaching my 21st birthday in this respect?

Mr. Fisher: It is true that the American Government undertook to build this bridge, and it is disappointing that nothing has been done. Discussions are continuing between the United States and the Bermudan Government, and we should be careful not to make them more difficult. The reason why Congress objects to voting money is that it takes the view that this project would have no military advantage to the United States.

Mr. Bennett: In view of that answer, I must ask my hon. Friend a further question. Is he aware that no question of military facilities comes into it? If this bridge were built as a quid pro quo it would provide the poorest section of the community living in St. George's and St. David's with direct access to the mainland without their having to go through the American sovereign base, with all the difficulties that that entails?

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is wrong. This project was agreed during the war; it was in the context of military advantage, which is now not thought to exist in this respect.

MALTA

Dockyard

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies, in view of the fact that the rapid industrialisation of Malta dockyard is essential to the economic future of the island, if he is satisfied that the money originally advanced for new equipment, modern workshops, tools and large cranes for commercial shipbuilding is now sufficient to establish the industry on a competitive basis; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fisher: The sums allocated for the physical conversion of the dockyard and for plant and equipment will be sufficient to equip the dockyard for ship repairing, in accordance with the present plan which is designed to produce a viable commercial enterprise. It has not yet been decided whether any development expenditure beyond the present plan will be desirable.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the amount of money now being


contributed to Malta is very unsatisfactory and is insufficient to develop the island economically? Is he further aware that the most important machine in the island—a 150-ton crane—has been sent from Malta to Gibraltar? This is not helping the industrial situation in Malta; it is retarding it. Will he take steps to see that the crane is returned to Malta so that it can be used for the development of ship-repairing? The ships passing by Malta are becoming much larger and a crane will be more necessary in the future than it has been in the past.

Mr. Fisher: The general grant available is in accordance with the present plans, which the hon. Member knows about. As for the crane, I shall check up and let the hon. Member know as soon as possible.

Independence

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies whether he will make a further statement about the constitutional future of Malta.

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what conclusions have been reached in the discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta regarding the future of that territory.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will now make a statement on his recent talks with the Prime Minister of Malta, and on the present views of Her Majesty's Government on the constitutional and economic future of Malta.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the constitutional and economic future of Malta.

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will now make a statement about his talks with the Prime Minister of Malta.

Mr. Sandys: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer Question No. 13, together with Questions Nos. 19, 24, 26 and 34 at the end of Questions.

IRISH REPUBLIC

Sentenced Persons

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies if he will make renewed representations to the Irish Republican authorities concerning the practice of the Irish Republican judiciary of suspending sentences of imprisonment on Irish Republican citizens provided they leave the Irish Republic and go and live in England.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. R. P. Hornby): I am aware that there was recently a report in the Press that a sentence had been suspended by a court in the Irish Republic on condition that the individual concerned—whose nationality was not stated—left the Republic and came to this country. The report is being investigated and in the light of these investigations I shall' certainly consider whether there are grounds for a further approach to the Irish Republican Government.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this practice, which was prevalent two or three years ago, is certainly creeping in again? If any other action which is contemplated is not satisfactory, will he, perhaps, consider retaliatory action in the form of suggesting to our own judiciary that it should consider suspending sentences of imprisonment on English criminals provided that they go to live in Ireland?

Mr. Hornby: My hon. and gallant Friend says that the practice is creeping in again. I have not heard of other recent cases. If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of examples, perhaps he would care to let me know of them and I would certainly have these cases—and the one which we are now looking into—investigated. In the light of the investigations, we would then, and not before, decide what to do.

Mr. Paget: Are British criminals adopting this practice without the formality of a sentence?

SPAIN

Gibraltar

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies what representations have been received from sources other than the Spanish Government suggesting that Gibraltar should be transferred from British to Spanish control.

Mr. Fisher: No representations of this kind have been received by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shinwell: If no representations have been received from sources other than the Spanish Government, what representations have Her Majesty's Government received, directly or indirectly, from representatives of the Franco Government?

Mr. Fisher: That is an entirely different question.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the hon. Gentleman answer it?

Mr. Fisher: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is in contact from time to time with the Spanish Government to try to promote good working relations over Gibraltar. It would be unfortunate to do anything to interfere with that atmosphere and spirit of negotiation.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that it has been admitted that the Foreign Secretary has been in touch with the Spanish Government all along the line, are we to understand that during his discussions with the Spanish Government some representations were made to him by the Spanish Government about the transfer of Gibraltar to Spain? Could we be told whether that was linked with the question of the provision of British frigates for Spain?

Mr. Fisher: The first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. It would be a pity to upset these informal interchanges between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Government by this bigoted attitude about frigates. It is always better to trade and to talk than to carp and to criticise.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister if he will introduce legislation to set up a register of the outside financial and business interests of all hon. Members of Parliament to be open to public inspection.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not the Prime Minister aware that the present arrangements are not entirely satisfactory, particularly in the spheres of advertising and public relations? Would it not be for the convenience of the public, as well as of Members of the House, that this information should be readily available as a matter of routine?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that that would be the general feeling of the House. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular representations to make to me, of course I will consider them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Prime Minister will not consider a register, will he consider issuing a map, especially a large map of Scotland, showing how much land is owned by hon. Members opposite?

COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES (EXPORT CREDITS)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Prime Minister if the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference discussed the problem of export credits between the Commonwealth countries.

The Prime Minister: The communiqué issued at the end of our Meeting was agreed by all the Prime Ministers, and it would not be right for me to add to what we have said about the topics that were discussed.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Prime Minister aware that very recently a radio network in one of the Commonwealth countries announced that that country now regards itself as being within the American sphere of influence because of the trading terms it enjoys from American suppliers? Does not the Prime Minister


regard this as a threat to the development of the Commonwealth, and should we not have some assurance that our trading terms will be much more attractive than those of America or any other competitor?

The Prime Minister: Following the Geneva meeting the other day, the question whether a multilateral export credit insurance scheme could be devised was referred to the International Bank. I think that probably we had better wait for the International Bank's findings before we pursue this much further.

YEMEN

Mr. Marsh: asked the Prime Minister, in view of his expressed policy of non-interference in the Yemen, who authorised the former aide-de-camp to the British High Commissioner in Aden to become actively involved, while holding that office, with an organisation led by British nationals which was supplying men and military materials to the Yemeni Royalist forces; and why such activities were not reported to Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: No one gave any such authorisation. Both the present High Commissioner and his predecessor have assured my right hon. Friend that they were not aware that the person in question was involved in any way.

Mr. Marsh: Is the Prime Minister seriously telling the House that people as well known as Colonel David Sterling, Major Cooper and the High Commissioner's own A.D.C. could, in an area as dangerous as this, engage in activities on this scale without anyone noticing it? Has the Prime Minister read the recent book by Sir Charles Johnston, the former High Commissioner, which makes it very clear that if he did not know what was going on he had a pretty good idea?

The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Gentleman has no right to make that kind of insinuation. Both Sir Charles Johnston and the High Commissioner have assured me that they had no idea at all that Mr. Boyle was engaged in these activities, and I must take their word for it—and I do.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that we still recognise the Imam as providing the legal and legitimate Government of the Yemen? In these circumstances, would we not in any event be perfectly right, if called upon to do so, to assist the Imam to expel Egyptian occupation forces from the land? In any case, can my right hon. Friend assure us that every assistance is being given to resolve the dispute in that area and persuade the Egyptian Government to withdraw their forces?

The Prime Minister: We are certainly trying to persuade the Egyptian Government to withdraw their forces. We are also trying to get the United Nations to demarcate the frontier—so far we have had very little response—because this would stop the traffic in arms which goes on all the time between tribes in that area. Our policy is one of non-involvement in the civil war in the Yemen.

Mr. S. Silverman: Accepting the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the authorities were not aware of these very extensive, very dangerous and very mischievous activities, does he not consider that they were committing a gross dereliction of duty in not knowing what must have been completely obvious?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say whether they should have noticed this. The fact is that they did not.

Sir P. Agnew: Is it not a fact that in the meantime, while the trouble continues, the disengagement agreement sponsored by the United Nations has been honoured absolutely in letter and spirit by the Kingdom of South Arabia and by the Federation of South Arabia under Her Majesty's Government's control and dishonoured in letter and spirit, and flagrantly, by the forces of the United Arab Republic?

The Prime Minister: That is so far broadly true. I cannot say whether the United Arab Republic will now decide to withdraw some troops. I profoundly hope that it will. The only result of all the plans for disengagement over the last 18 months has been the continuous increase in the number of Egyptian troops in the Yemen.

Mr. Marsh: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.

COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take towards the establishment of a permanent Commonwealth Secretariat, following suggestions made at the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

The Prime Minister: As the Final Communiqué records, the Prime Ministers have instructed Commonwealth officials to consider the best basis for establishing a Commonwealth Secretariat. We for our part welcome this initiative. We hope that early arrangements can be made for Commonwealth officials to examine the matter and submit their recommendations to all Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Prime Minister aware that very few people in this country and in the Commonwealth will have much faith in the Government's belated conversion to the idea of knitting the Commonwealth more closely together, especially after the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and the frequent displays of adolescent arrogance by the Prime Minister and his colleagues? [Interruption.] Will the Prime Minister now be honest with the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and admit that he can contribute nothing to this process and that several of the African and Asian Prime Ministers would have walked out of the recent Conference had they not known that there was going to be another Government in this country in about three months' time?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is so wide of the mark in all the statements he made that I do not think it is worth my answering a single one of them.

Mr. Turton: Could my right hon. Friend convey to his fellow Common-

wealth Prime Ministers that the views of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) represent neither the Opposition nor the Government side of the House?

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Prime Minister aware that in the debate on Commonwealth co-operation last year, when the formation of a Commonwealth Economic Secretariat was suggested from this side of the House, the Government spokesman said that the other Commonwealth countries did not want it? May we be assured that the Government will be more enthusiastic now about the establishment of a Secretariat than they were in the past?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman really gave himself his own answer, because, from the point of view of a Commonwealth Economic Secretariat, the Prime Ministers still do not want it. What they want is a secretariat to exchange information and help them to understand inter-Commonwealth affairs.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition, in a party political broadcast last Wednesday, said that Britain had failed to give any lead to the Commonwealth, while on Thursday he said the exact opposite and failed to give any credit to my right hon. Friend? Will my right hon. Friend try to discover where the right hon. Gentleman is standing in October?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that to find out where the right hon. Gentleman stands is beyond me.

ADVERTISING INQUIRY COUNCIL (RECOMMENDATION)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Prime Minister what study Her Majesty's Government have made of the Statement of Policy Recommendations for Advertising which he has received from the Advertising Inquiry Council; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what study Her Majesty's Government have made of the Statement of Policy Recommendations for Advertising, copies of which have been sent


to him by the Advertising Inquiry Council; and what consultations have taken place with outside bodies on this subject.

The Prime Minister: The memorandum by the Advertising Inquiry Council is being studied by the Government. It was only recently received and will need careful consideration.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Prime Minister aware that the British Medical Association, which is not an irresponsible body, particularly on medical matters, made a submission to the Independent Television Authority at the beginning of June urging the implementation of Recommendation No. 4 contained in this Report; namely, to ban the advertising of cigarettes on television in view of the high incidence of lung cancer? In the light of this Report and of the B.M.A.'s submission, will the right hon. Gentleman now take the initiative in calling together his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health with Sir George Godber, Chief Medical Officer at his Ministry, together with the Postmaster-General and with Lord Hill, chairman of the I.T.A., to see if this matter can be pursued further and some definite action achieved?

The Prime Minister: I have said that we will take into account all the recommendations in this document, which contains a good many proposals which deserve careful study.

Mr. Noel-Baker: While thanking the Prime Minister very much for his original reply and that comment, will he refer to the Consumer Council, the Monopolies Commission, the Press Council and the I.T.A. the particular recommendations which affect them and get their views on them?

The Prime Minister: The two supplementary questions which have been asked on this Question illustrate the need for study of this document.

Mr. Woodburn: Would the Prime Minister not agree that the best advertisement and declaration on this subject would be to invite all doctors, teachers and Ministers of the Crown to set an example by stopping smoking?

MERCHANT SHIPS (RUSSIAN ORDERS)

Mr. Maude: asked the Prime Minister, how many Russian orders for British-built merchant ships have been placed since 1951; what proposals have been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this period for barter deals involving British ships and Russian oil; what action on them was taken by Her Majesty's Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government placed a veto on any such order or proposal.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would you be kind enough to look at this Question, Mr. Speaker? Would you not agree that it is a Question which obviously should have been put down to the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development? Are you aware that I put down a Question addressed to the Prime Minister which related to representation made directly to the Prime Minister and that it was transferred to another Minister, whereas this Question, which obviously is intended for the Minister of Transport, is now to be answered by the Prime Minister? Is this action not completely arbitrary, and is the Prime Minister not treating hon. Members with contempt? [Interruption.] What is more, for the remainder of this Session I am not standing any nonsense from him.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid, with respect, that not even the persuasiveness of the right hon. Gentleman would persuade me to make other pronouncements about the Chair's responsibility in relation to the transfer of Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: It is a stooge Question. That is what it is.

The Prime Minister: The answer to the Question is: Since 1951, 24 merchant ships have been ordered from British shipyards for export to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government have at no time made any proposition to Her Majesty's Government for the purchase of British ships in exchange for Soviet oil. Nevertheless, after widespread Press reports that the Soviet Union would contemplate such a deal, we stated publicly


in February, 1963, that we should consider any specific proposal on its merits. The Soviet Government did not pursue this offer but subsequently told us that it was not their policy to link the purchase of British ships with the provision of a quota for Soviet oil. There is, therefore, no question of Her Majesty's Government placing a veto on such a proposal.

Mr. Maude: Are we to understand from my right hon. Friend's Answer that, as usual, last week the Leader of the Opposition had his facts wrong again?

The Prime Minister: I did my best to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making an intervention, but I was unsuccessful and his facts were wrong.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister now give the accurate facts to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and begin by first telling hon. Members for how many years these ships were on an embargo after the end of the fighting in Korea and state what representations the Government had from the Soviet Government about their inability to place a whole range of orders for ships in this country until 1959, and how many of those orders were placed in other countries? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by the Soviet Deputy-Premier, now the President of the Soviet Union, about their inability to buy ships in this country in 1962 and their decision, therefore, to place orders in Denmark, Finland, Japan, Sweden and not in this country?

The Prime Minister: To answer the last part of that Question first, the Russians always insisted that they would purchase from British shipyards only if our ships were competitive in price and delivery. As to the question about an embargo, the right hon. Gentleman went back a number of years. I thought that he supported the embargo. Indeed, he said to me the other day:
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to a strategic embargo, is he aware that we support him on that, too…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 218.]
So he did support it at that time.

Mr. Wilson: If this is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of straight talk, I should

like to have some from him. Is he aware that by going back to 1951 I followed the Question? Is he aware that the embargo on merchant ships—[Interruption.]—these are not strategic; these are not naval vessels—was continued long after the ending of the fighting in Korea for which that embargo was imposed? Is he not aware that time and time again in this House we asked for the ending of the embargo on merchant ships, which Ministers opposite refused?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Cocom embargo is a matter for the N.A.T.O. allies, and we leave, in this matter—[Interruption.] If right hon. and hon. Members opposite really do not take any notice of the opinions of our allies—[Interruption.] I very much hope that they will make this plain to the N.A.T.O. alliance. But, at the present moment, we are dealing with the question whether or not there is a link between the purchase by the Russians of ships in this country and an oil deal—and there is not. The Russians will buy ships here if they are satisfied about our competitive prices.

Mr. Wilson: Since the Question refers to the veto, will the Prime Minister now admit that from 1951—the date mentioned in the Question—to 1959, the Russians were not allowed by the Government to place any orders in this country in respect of any peaceful merchant ships which went at a speed beyond 12 knots? Will he not admit that?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. And I should take the representations of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the Question."]—much more seriously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—if they had not—[Interruption.]

Sir J. Eden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible in some way to enable my right hon. Friend to give the answer for which he has been asked—[Interruption.]—in the face of the jeers of the extreme left wing of the Labour Party?

Mr. Speaker: I am not concerned with the precise location from which the


noise comes, but there is too much noise. The Prime Minister must be allowed to answer.

Hon. Members: Answer.

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to let me answer, I will answer. It has been known for years by the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else that the faster ships were on the Cocom embargo list. That has been common knowledge for years. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the second part of his supplementary question, I would say that I would take the representations of hon. and right hon. Members opposite much more seriously if they had not turned down an order for ships which was in our pockets as far as Spanish frigates are concerned. [Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: A little less noise would be helpful to me. I think that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was rising to a point of order?

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has widened the question from Russia to Spain, would it be in order—[Interruption.] This is a point of order to Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was allowed, Mr. Speaker, to widen the question from Russia to Spain, would I be allowed to put a supplementary question of similar width?

Mr. Speaker: I think that is a fair point, and I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to put one question, but I do not think that we should spend any more time on this.

Mr. Wilson: Then could I ask the Prime Minister, since his geography is so elastic, whether he will explain to the House why, after all these protestations—[Interruption.]—and my geography can be elastic, too—why after all the protestations by both parties in the House about giving help to India when attacked by China, India's request for three "Leander" class frigates, put to the Government 18 months ago, has

still not been met? And how much employment does that represent?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman might put that question down.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be in the interests of the House itself not to make so much noise. Questions must be conducted in a less unseemly manner.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the Prime Minister say words to the effect that he would desire that question to be put down. I have already—[Interruption.]—intimated that I think we should move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Go into reverse now.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not now obvious, Mr. Speaker, that if the Question had been answered by the Minister of Transport, to whom it should have been addressed, we should have avoided all this trouble?

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that even—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) does not appreciate that I was seeking time, and silence, in which to answer a question already addressed to me, which is that the matter is not a question for me. Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I wanted to ask, further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—whether it is in order for the Leader of the Opposition to raise as a point of order his desire simply to ask another supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) very properly suggested that the last answer had widened the field completely. I think that it is a fair point. Mr. Sandys—answers to Question 13, and others.

MALTA (INDEPENDENCE)

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I will, with permission, now answer Questions Nos. 13, 19, 24, 26, and 34 together.
I have this morning completed the long negotiations with the Government of Malta on the question of independence.
As a result, we have now settled the form of Malta's future Constitution. This will be on the lines proposed by the Government of Malta with certain important amendments which have been agreed.
The Government of Malta have expressed the desire that Malta should remain a Monarchy with Her Majesty as Queen; they have informed me of their intention to seek membership of the Commonwealth.
We have also this morning initialled agreements on defence and financial aid which are to be signed on independence.
The Defence Agreement will enable British forces to remain in Malta for 10 years. Under the Finance Agreement, Britain will, during the same period, provide capital aid for the development and diversification of the economy and assistance for emigration, up to a total of about £50 million.
The text of the new Constitution is being published today as a White Paper; and a limited number of cyclostyled advance copies of the two agreements are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Driberg: No, they are not.

Mr. Sandys: Despite the small amount of Parliamentary time which remains, I hope that the House will feel disposed to pass the necessary Independence Bill before the Recess. I realise that this is asking a lot of hon. Members. But, as they know, Malta's independence has already had to be postponed beyond the target date of 31st May. It is, therefor, most desirable not to delay further, any longer than is necessary.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many friends of Malta in this country will welcome this Agreement with the Malta Government and, as far as we can see, the form which it takes? In the matter of defence, is there any provision for the time after the 10-

year period has elapsed, and over how long a period will the £50 million of economic aid be spent?

Mr. Sandys: As I have said, the Defence Agreement is for 10 years. I do not think that we can look beyond 10 years, but I have no doubt that during that time we can consider any arrangements beyond that date. As I said in my statement, the Finance Agreement is for a similar period of 10 years.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will all welcome the independence of Malta? Is he aware, however, that he has made no reference to the most controversial issue which is being discussed with reference to the Constitution? Is there no agreement on a Bill of Rights which will guarantee to the people of Malta freedom to make their own decisions without the pressures of what are termed "spiritual authorities" to damn them unless they vote in a particular direction? If there is to be liberty in Malta and real independence surely the right hon. Gentleman will guarantee that in the Constitution.

Mr. Sandys: The Constitution contains a large chapter on fundamental human rights. As a result of these negotiations that chapter has been further strengthened. An additional non-discrimination clause has been inserted and amendments have been made which, I am sure, will be in accordance with the wishes of the hon. Member.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the documents to which he referred are not available in the Vote Office? I understand that they were to have been there at 3.30, but I am informed by the Vote Office that their arrival was deliberately postponed to 3.45, no doubt in order to cause the maximum possible inconvenience to back-bench Members.
Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore answer one or two questions to which we might have been able to find the answers ourselves while studying these documents during the few peaceful minutes since 3.30? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the human rights clause, which he referred to as strengthened, is acceptable in its present form to the Archbishop of Malta? Can he say whether provision is made for


elections before independence, and if not, why not? Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman publish the report of the observers of the referendum?

Mr. Sandys: On the question of the Vote Office, it is a very usual procedure to make documents available immediately after a statement has been made. I am sure that the House will recognise that.
These amendments, which have been made to strengthen the human rights provisions, are fully approved by the ecclesiastical authorities in Malta.

Mr. Driberg: They will be jolly useful, then!

Mr. Sandys: That is a thoroughly prejudiced remark, because the Catholic Church—

Mr. Driberg: Roman Catholic.

An Hon. Member: The Apostolic.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I may be allowed to speak in my own way. Because the Apostolic Catholic Church—

Mr. Driberg: The Roman.

Mr. Sandys: The Roman Apostolic Catholic Church. Because it is in agreement with the changes which we are making to strengthen human rights, that is no reason for the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) to jeer.
The third point was the question about the referendum and the observers' report. As I think many hon. Members know, the referendum did not really tell us anything new that we did not already know about the differences which existed among the Maltese parties on this question, and it has, therefore, not in any way influenced the conclusions which we have reached. Therefore, I do not see any advantages in either analysing the result of the referendum or in publishing comment upon it.

Mr. Gordon Walker: While we are very glad that these negotiations have been concluded, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that he is absolutely right when he says that the proposed timetable is very hard on hon. Members?
I note that a limited number of advance copies of the two Agreements are to be available in the Vote Office.

Will more copies be available in a reasonable time? After all, any debate which we must have must be very quick indeed, and if hon. Members cannot study these two Agreements they cannot make a contribution to the debate.
Would the right hon. Gentleman think again about publishing the observers' report? This was a very important impartial body that was making the report and the refusal to publish it must give rise to all sorts of doubts in many places about what the report might contain. It may be an unjust view about it, but this would be an inevitable consequence of the refusal to publish the report which, I think, everybody assumed would be published when it was made.

Mr. Sandys: It was a confidential report, but I will consider whether it ought to be published. As for copies of the Agreements, when I said that there would be a limited number I meant that they will not be on sale generally, but I hope that there will be sufficient copies for all hon. Members.

Mr. Wall: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing these long and difficult negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion? Will the 10-year Defence Agreement mean a check on the rundown of British forces in Malta? Will it be possible to complete the litigation about the dockyard and get it out of the way before independence and before Malta assumes Commonwealth membership?

Mr. Sandys: I do not think that there is any prospect of the dockyard litigation being completed at any early date. It is likely to be a long process. The Defence Agreement will not affect our military plans except to the extent that if there had not been a military agreement we would have had to withdraw our forces altogether.

Mr. Grimond: Do I understand that in the right hon. Gentleman's view no lessons whatever can be learned from the referendum? Is this due to the phrasing of the questions, or to what other cause?
As for human rights, what sanctions are available if this provision should be disregarded?

Mr. Sandys: In the main, the sanction is that any law or anything done under


any law in contravention of human rights will be invalidated. That is the main sanction, and it is the normal sanction in all human rights codes. This follows closely the human rights provisions in other constitutions.
With regard to the other question, everybody voted more or less according to their party affiliations, which we already knew.

Sir W. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend agree that both we and Malta owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Prime Minister of Malta for having waited here for nine weeks at a time when he, no doubt, wanted to be at home looking after his own affairs, realising that my right hon. Friend was busy on other matters?

Mr. Sandys: I think that the Prime Minister of Malta has shown great patience; but so have I.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this matter now.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect, it is only during the last two minutes that several of us have had an opportunity to look at the documents. We should like an opportunity to put some questions.

Mr. Speaker: That may be, but that would seem to be an even better reason for debating them on the Bill.

Mrs. Castle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said that it would be better to raise these matters on the Bill. What some of us are anxious about is exactly how much time we are to be given to study these important documents and this detailed constitution before the House is asked to pass the Bill. Could we, therefore, elicit from the Secretary of State an undertaking that this matter will not be brought before this House until we have had at least a week to study these important documents?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps if I call the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal to make a business statement we shall get some guidance.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
In view of my right hon. Friend's announcement on Malta, the business for Thursday, 23rd July, and Monday, 27th July, has been rearranged as follows:
THURSDAY—Second Reading of the Malta Independence Bill, after which we shall, in view of the urgency, ask the House to take the remaining stages.
MONDAY, 27TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]: Report.
A debate on the Family Doctor Service until 7.30 p.m., when the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Votes.
Afterwards, a debate on Concessionary Fares, on an Opposition Motion.
Motions on the Thames Conservancy Orders, and the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations.

Mr. G. Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that we have acquiesced in the order of business which the Government are asking for on the basis that it is their responsibility and not ours? Is he not clearly aware that there will be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who will have a number of issues to raise, that putting the Malta Independence Bill through in one day will, therefore, be a very difficult operation and the day may have to be protracted?

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and for the Colonies said, we know that we are asking a great deal of the House to do this, and we would not ask it unless it were in the interests of this country and perhaps more in the interests of Malta that the Bill should go through as quickly as possible.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Leader of the House aware that he had no right to make a suggestion of this kind to the House? It is intolerable that he should ask the House to discuss this important


matter, involving human rights and the rights of minorities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—with which we know hon. Members opposite are not at all concerned. It is quite wrong that we should be asked to discuss this detailed and important matter within less than 48 hours. Is there not another week of Parliamentary time in which this matter could be discussed? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman postpone the Bill until at least Thursday of next week?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot help the hon. Lady, much as I would like to do so. The Bill has got to go through another place as well, and I think that it is in the interests of Malta that it should go through as quickly as possible. The issues involved are well known. I realise that it is asking a great deal of the House, but I still hope that the House would wish to do this.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that irrespective of the merits of the case, which are not being discussed now, most of us appreciate that there is a real urgency in this matter since it is without precedent for the House of Commons to withhold independence if there should be any risk in delaying matters? There are plenty of precedents to this effect, and this really is the last chance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept the co-operation of us all in this matter?

Mr. M. Foot: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that he realises that he is putting the House of Commons to great inconvenience, which he obviously is, cannot he agree to a concession whereby we should have the Second Reading debate on Thursday and the subsequent stages of the Bill at a later time? It is extremely difficult, when we have a Second Reading debate and many controversial issues are involved in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman admits that he is asking the House of Commons to undertake a great burden. Could he not make the concession that the Committee stage and further stages of the Bill should be taken at a later time than immediately following the Second Reading?

Mr. Lloyd: I would ask the House to leave it as it is today. We want to

do the right thing, and I therefore adhere to my statement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We must get on.

Mrs. Hart: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady should understand that I am a servant of the House in this as in everything else, but we are trespassing so much on the business that we have appointed for the day.

Mrs. Hart: On a point of order. May I ask this question of you? We shall have the Bill before us on Thursday. Since there are less than two days between the announcement of the Secretary of State today and the time when we are to discuss the Bill, and in view of the unusual nature of this procedure, would it be possible for you to ask whether the Minister responsible would be prepared to answer some questions that hon. Members would like to put to him in order to clarify some of the issues before Thursday?

Mr. Speaker: That does not raise a question for me. I do not accept the mantle of responsibility for those matters.

Mr. M. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an extremely important question, affecting the future of a whole British territory. Could you tell us what will be the procedure of the House of Commons in dealing with the Committee stage of the Bill? Will it be in order for hon. Members to submit manuscript Amendments, particularly in view of the fact that it appears that the normal procedure for putting down Amendments will not be available because, as I understand, the Bill itself is not yet available to the House? Surely special provision ought to be made on this account.

Mr. Lloyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I may explain the position. Agreement was only reached this morning. Notice will be given today and the Bill will be available at 3.30 tomorrow afternoon. It is a very short Bill indeed.

Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule now on circumstances which will arise. I shall have to rule when they do arise.

Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of our rights in this House, that there is one very exceptional circumstance which has not been mentioned or taken into account at all and that is that there is a postal dispute in progress? Some of us would have wished to write to the Archbishop of Malta to ask him how he interprets a particular Clause in the Bill which guarantees him freedom to exercise his spiritual functions and duties; but there would be no time to get a reply—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is not at that point on a point of order at all.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[The Prime Minister.]

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Am I correct in understanding, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with Standing Order No. 18, this Motion is debatable? If so, I want to ask the Financial Secretary some questions. As finance is involved, I have been wondering where the Financial Secretary is.
I want to make some observations with a view to trying to safeguard for the future House of Commons control of finance, which, in my view, is involved in this matter. I am surprised that the elected representatives of the people in the House were, apparently, prepared to acquiesce in a Motion of this kind without some observations being made upon it. In my view, it raises a very serious issue. Fundamentally, the question of control of finance is involved, and according to my understanding British constitutional rights are involved in House of Commons control of finance.
I believe that in the country the present inflationary trend has been introduced in the main by gigantic Government expenditure, principally on armaments. I have never been a party to that to the extent to which it has gone on. Therefore I can say this. There is a tendency among far too many to blame the inflationary trends on increasing wages, whereas actually wages are only chasing prices. What produces the inflationary situation is gigantic military expenditure. Therefore, as we have three White Papers before us, the fact that the elected people's representatives should acquiesce in this going through takes some understanding.
The logic of the proposal is that virement is now taken from the House itself. In the past, that safeguarded our control of finance, but the logic of the change that has been made is that virement is now vested in the Treasury. Provided


that it publishes a Treasury minute which goes before the Public Accounts Committee, it seems that procedure is taken by which it will be only a matter of time before the House loses control of financial expenditure. Had we passed this Motion today without any observation being made upon it, it would have meant that millions of pounds would have changed hands, millions would have been juggled with in surpluses and deficits from one account to another until the Guillotine falls at 9.30 tonight, and that would be the end of the matter.
I have spent a large part of my life among the millions of people who are now working to keep this country going. But for the loyalty of our people in producing exports, the country would not last for very long. In industry, where it is necessary to quote in keen competition, we are not allowed to juggle from surplus to deficit, but have to quote almost the last halfpenny. To allow this to go on nationally is an insult to all who are accepting great responsibility in industry. It should not be allowed.
I have before me the Third Report of the Public Accounts Committee. I shall not read it, because hon. Members can obtain copies from the Vote Office. Involved in this White Paper is the serious issue I am raising. The Third Report refers to
Virement Between Votes of Service Departments".
I ask the Financial Secretary, or whoever will accept responsibility on behalf of the Prime Minister for this matter, whether I am correct in saying that £6 million has been juggled with—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot, on this procedural Motion, discuss matters pertaining to the contents of the particular Votes. No doubt he can make his argument about the procedural Motion without doing so, but beyond that point it passes out of order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. By accepting these White Papers, does it mean that when the Guillotine falls tonight not one word can be said about the way in which these surpluses and deficits have been dealt with? Is it to be taken as a precedent that when a Motion is placed before us in this form we can only pass it when we have been allowed to make observations, provided

that we keep in order? Am I correct in understanding—I say this with great respect; I am not trying to score a point—that in future, if a Motion of this character is allowed to go through, when the Guillotine falls at 9.30 p.m., no further word can be said about the way in which the finances of the Navy, the Army and the Air Force have been dealt with as they have been in the past, when we have had a White Paper before us?
I realise that this is a new procedure. That is why I safeguarded myself by asking Mr. Speaker whether the Motion is debateable. As a result of being allowed to debate the Motion, I thought that I should be in order, without going into detail, to raise the issue of the way in which surpluses and deficits have been handled. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: No. Not the content of the Vote. The hon. Member can deduce arguments for objecting to the Motion in this form, but the point stops there.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does that mean that our only course is to vote against this Motion and that we have now reached a situation, owing to the introduction of this new procedure, in which no matter how the defence authorities handle these deficits and surpluses the House is not allowed to discuss them? Is that the position?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is seeking to ask me a question which goes outside my field. All I can say is that this Motion was tendered to the House. He, with respect, would have to make up his own mind whether he wishes to oppose it or no.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am very sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I understand the position and I do not want to put anyone in difficulties. Far be it from me to do that. I know the difficulties of accepting responsibility. This is a new procedure and we should deal with it in as magnanimous a way as possible, provided that we stay in order.
I ask the Leader of the House whether I am correct in believing that in future, when Motions of this character are put before us, we are not allowed to raise the issue of the way in which the surpluses and deficits are dealt with? If that is so, it makes a farce of the whole business. While safeguarding my right to continue


my observations, may I ask the Leader of the House his advice about that, so that it will guide me in what I want to say?

4.10 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I realise the spirit in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) raises the point. We are acting in accordance within Standing Orders and, therefore, the procedure has been agreed by the House. This is the 25th Allotted Supply Day and there have been all these opportunities of raising questions on Supply. But, by agreement of the House and in accordance with Standing Orders, we are dealing with this subject by the method proposed.
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman, and what may be of some comfort to him, is the Select Committee on Procedure had a series of meetings quite recently on this whole queston of the form in which the Defence Estimates should be published. In a Report to the House we said that one of the very earliest tasks of the new Parliament should be to have a wide-ranging review of the whole of this procedure with regard to the scrutiny of public expenditure, particularly on defence matters. That is a firm recommendaton of the Committee. I think that it is an important job which should be done very quickly during the first days of the new Parliament.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Let me make clear that in anything I have said I have not had the slightest desire to create difficulties for the Chair. This is a new procedure. Many hon. Members will remember that I have always been concerned about there being one attitude on the part of the nation towards industry and another to the defence authorities. That is fundamentally wrong and hon. Members have acquiesced in it for far too long.
Now we have had an assurance from the Leader of the House about the future, and as the matter is being considered, so far as I am concerned—not having been a party to acquiescing in the present procedure being continued—I am very satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

PUBLIC RELATIONS COMPANIES (REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL CLIENTS)

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward Milne: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration of those clients of public relations companies who are engaged in political activities.
I am sure that the House will wish permission to be given to me to introduce my Bill. It is admitted that little, if any, time remains to deal with this subject further in the present Parliament, but the opportunities for back-bench Members are limited enough without letting the 10 minutes accorded to a Motion of this description go by default.
I think that the nature of the problem with which we intend to deal by the provisions in my proposed Bill was best summed up in a recent book on the subject, where it was stated:
Public relations has suddenly come into the open as the business that has failed to do for itself what it effectively does for others: either through incompetence, or because of other hidden reasons. The performance and technique of public relations have given it a mystique without increasing public confidence in its value or necessity.
I consider that criticism and judgment a little harsh because in the "Teach Yourself" series dealing with the subject of public relations we find the definition:
Public relations practice is the deliberate planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain mutual understanding between an organisation and its public.
When we first embarked on a study of this subject, some years ago, and went to the research department of the Library in this House, and asked for a list of publications and cuttings on public relations, we discovered that public relations was indexed
For public relations, see propaganda.
We can, therefore, approach the problem from that point of view.
I was particularly interested in a comment by Neil Staebler, Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, to the Special Committee of the House of Representatives in America, set up to investigate the 1952 campaign expenditure. He said:
I suggest to the Committee that our major problem comes from the modern development of the mass media of communication. These media are expensive and grow more so all the


time… [they] are not merely expensive but for them have been developed new advertising techniques, requiring professional skills that are also expensive… If present tendencies continue, our Federal elections will increasingly become contests not between candidates, but between great advertising firms.
There are people who say that cannot happen here. I am quite certain that if one examines the development and the tendencies one would appreciate that our General Election may be heading in the same direction.
Let me say, in fairness, that the intention of my Bill has the support of most of the sections of the Institute of Public Relations. This Institute, with a membership of over 2,000, is the main professional body in the field of public relations. At its annual conference this year a call was made for a positive assertion of the bona fides of the Institute membership by support of the promotion of legislation such as is now before the House. To quote the words of the President:
and thus at one blow sweep away the element of secrecy from pressure group activities.
I suggest that there are few hon. Members who would, at least openly, oppose the idea of this move.
I welcome the fact that here at least is an organisation that realises it is not enough merely to have a code of conduct for its profession, the code must be legally enforcible. It may interest hon. Members to know that provisions in the Institute code are designed to ensure that members do not disseminate false or misleading information; that they do not operate "front organisations"; that they disclose the motives behind their actions, and that they do not corrupt the channels of public communications. I can imagine that the operation of such a code of conduct would keep many people silent for a long time.
The idea behind the proposal in my Bill is not new. As far back as 1959 we find that a prominent Oxford social scientist was discussing the idea, and it has been mooted in different quarters in different ways on different occasions. I should be the last to wish to copy the legislation of the United States in this matter, but the House will be aware that the Federal Registration of Lobbying Act has been in operation there since 1946,

Since 1934, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which obliges all public relations organisations representing overseas clients to register with the State Department, has been on the Statute Book of that country.
In respect of a multitude of political matters we, as Members of Parliament, could reach decisions much more easily if we were able to tell from a registration list which clients of a public relations firm were contacting us. I appreciate that we could do quite a bit of naming when dealing with a subject of this description, but I prefer to leave that side of it alone in order to concentrate on laying the foundations of a more healthy and democratic approach to the whole problem. This is something which can be thrashed out by the House, by the public relations profession itself and by all those who are interested in seeing that democracy in this country is fostered and is not limited in any way.
In 1962, addressing the conference of the Institute of Public Relations, the Minister of State for Education and Science said:
My own belief is that everyone in a democratic society is entitled to proclaim his own opinions, or pay someone else to proclaim them for him, and to urge that those who have the power to do so should act on those opinions.
There is a little danger in that. The suggestion is that, if we cannot proclaim our own opinions strongly and forthrightly ourselves, and if we have sufficient cash or resources for the purpose, we should employ others to do it.
I do not complain about that, but what I am asking is that, when it is done and when there is an expenditure of money to proclaim an idea on behalf of someone else, then we, as Members of Parliament, ought to have access to a list giving us knowledge of who is sponsoring what and who is behind the idea being proclaimed.
For the reasons I have given, I commend the Motion to the House.

4.21 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I oppose the Motion, and I do so so that I can state one or two reasons why I believe that a Bill of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) is not a suitable one to be introduced by a private Member without a really full


inquiry. The hon. Member has put his case so moderately, and without any personal allusions to what one imagines is the background reason for the introduction of the Bill, that I hesitate to develop the argument further. Nevertheless, I think that a point of importance for everyone, not only Members of Parliament, is raised.
The argument, if developed, could touch on the need for the publication of all sorts of information which is at present kept secret by certain bodies of professional people, perhaps doctors, lawyers or accountants, and a very wide subject is embraced by the matter which has been put to us by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is genuine in his interest and approach, but it seems a little odd that, at the final stage of this Parliament—as he himself admitted, and as we all know, there is not the slightest chance of the Bill reaching the Statute Book—he should have thought right to introduce a Motion of this kind.
I think that it a pity that he did not go a little further in developing his real reasons for so doing.

Mr. Walter Monslow: The hon. Lady would not have liked them.

Dame Irene Ward: No, but I could have answered them. I never believe in raising personal matters—I do not mean personal to myself, but personal in the sense of what would be proposed in the Bill—unless there is a good reason for so doing. However, I shall not develop the argument as I might have done had the hon. Gentleman gone further.
I had it in mind to say to the hon. Member for Blyth that, although I do not agree with him politically, I know that he is a very active Member who lives in his own constituency, close to mine. I should have liked to offer him, as a friend, if I might, a warning that he is fishing in waters in which it would be unwise to fish. However, since he has not developed the matter, I shall not take it further from that point of view. All I say is that, on a subject of this kind, involving the disclosure of relationships between professional bodies and their clients, we should in a democratic Parliament, before

acceding to any such proposal, think very carefully.
The subject of the proposed Bill touches a matter with which we in Parliament are closely concerned, that is, the protection of the individual and the privacy of the individual in his use of professional organisations. It is a little unwise to try to introduce such a Measure with such far-reaching provisions at the final stage of this Parliament and without proper Parliamentary inquiry.
That is all I have to say in opposition to the Motion. I should not dream of trying to force a Division on the Motion. The Bill which will be introduced will go no further, and it would be a waste of the time of the House to try to do any such thing.

Mr. E. G. Willis: This is a waste of time, too.

Dame Irene Ward: I have as much right to make my observations as had the hon. Member for Blyth in introducing the Motion.
If, in the next Parliament, whoever may be the victors at the election, the hon. Gentleman is still a Member and I am still a Member, and if the Bill is reintroduced under the Ten Minutes Rule, it will be more profitable if we then ask the Government of the day to institute a full inquiry before embarking on legislation affecting the secrecy of relationships between clients and professional bodies. I put that on record because I should not like a Bill of this kind, implying what it does, to be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule without someone stating that there may be involved an attack on the freedom of the individual in his right to decide who or what he wants to use or in his right to select what professional bodies he wishes to put forward the interests which he wishes to advance.
Therefore, not only in the interests of parliamentary democracy, but in the interests of the hon. Member for Blyth himself, who is, as I say, fishing in waters in which he has not a great deal of experience, I register my protest against such a Bill being introduced without proper inquiry at this stage of Parliament.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milne, Mr. Blyton, Mr. Deer, Mr. Ferny-hough, Mr. Loughlin, Mr. Moyle, Mr. Owen, and Mr. Silkin.

PUBLIC RELATIONS COMPANIES (REGISTRATION OF POLITICAL CLIENTS)

Bill to provide for the registration of those clients of public relations companies who are engaged in political activities, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 201.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65; DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1964–65; DEFENCE (ARMY) SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1964–65; NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63; ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63; AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £219,615,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for expenditure in respect of the services included in the following Civil Estimates, viz.:—


CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65



£


Class VI, Vote 13, Ministry of Health
3,125,000


Class VI, Vote 15, National Health Service (Executive Councils' Services), England and Wales
123,062,000


Class VI, Vote 16, Miscellaneous Health and Welfare Services, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £2,651,000)
30,739,000


Class VI, Vote 18, National Health Service, &amp;c, Scotland
62,689,000


Total
£219,615,000

Orders of the Day — CLASS III

VOTE 2. SCOTTISH HOME AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,489,000 (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000), be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Scottish Home and Health Department; for a grant to the Legal Aid (Scotland) Fund; for expenses in connection with fire, probation and sundry other services; and for grants in aid.—[£944,000 has been voted on account.]

SCOTLAND (TRADE AND INDUSTRY)

4.30 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, That a sum, not exceeding £1,488,000, be granted for the said Service.
As we have not been provided with the documents on which we usually base our debate on this subject, I do not think that anyone can take offence at the fact that we have sought to reduce the amount involved. It is a matter of considerable disappointment to Scottish Members that in this the last and most important debate for Scotland in this Parliament we should be without the information on which we usually base our discussion.
When we add to that the fact that the Board of Trade has not yet produced the annual report on the Local Employment Act, to which no doubt considerable reference will be made, you, Sir William, will appreciate the extent of the difficulty in which we have been placed. I know that last year that document was not available until 30th July, but to make this debate substantial, and so that we could check and analyse some of the figures which will be thrown at us, it would have been far better if we had been armed with the relevant documents.
I said that this is the last important Scottish debate in his Parliament. It will not be the last important Scottish debate. The debate will be carried from here during the coming weeks into the highways and byways of Scotland. But, lest anyone should think that this is purely a Scottish debate, let me remind hon. Members opposite that our concern for the well-being of Scotland is not selfish. The difficulties of Scotland today spring from the Government's failure to give us policies adequate to the needs of the whole of Britain. Indeed, that failure in other parts of the country has exaggerated the difficulties in Scotland.
I am sorry that we are not to have an all-Scottish debate. I understand that my speech is to be followed by a speech from the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and all the rest—fresh from his

triumphs over the small shopkeeper, the "gateway theatre" production. But we have had another and important accession to the Scottish Tory group during the last year—the Prime Minister. He has not made a single speech in the House on Scottish affairs. When we appreciate the difficulty that he has in answering Questions, and the ignorance which he shows about Scottish affairs, we can understand it; but he has a duty to Scotland and to his own constituency.
The Prime Minister makes speeches outside this Chamber—at the Bull Ring at Perth and the Playhouse in Glasgow. There, behind the potted palms and before the well-cushioned matrons of the Unionist Party, he is a very bold and brave man. What about the House of Commons? Where is the right hon. Gentleman? This reminds me of those words from "Alice in Wonderland":
When the sands are all dry, he is gay as a lark,
And will talk in contemptuous tones of the Shark.
But, when the tide rises and the sharks are around
His voice has a timid and tremulous sound.
As a matter of fact, we do not hear it at all.

Earl of Dalkeith: rose—

Mr. Ross: I have only just started and I do not want at present to give way to the inheritor of the largest landed estates in Scotland. I am only a humble peasant. We do not want one earl to come to the rescue of an ex-earl just at the moment.
In Glasgow, in February this year, the Prime Minister said that after 12 years of Conservative government the young and vigorous people were going places in Scottish industry. Indeed, they are going places. Over the last 13 years. 345,000 people have left Scotland. We have experienced a natural increase of population of over that amount. Our population is static because conditions in Scotland have been such that people have had to leave Scotland to find work, homes and a future. This is the kernel of the debate.
What will we get from the Secretary of State? We will get discriminating, selective statistics.

Mr. E. G. Willis: And not very good ones, either.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will talk about prospects, applications, jobs in the pipeline, millions of sq. ft—the lot. Then we shall have a sermon. I warn the right hon. Gentleman: if he has a sermon in his brief, he should score it out. We do not want sermons from him about my hon. Friends and I promoting decline, and being dismal jimmies, because may I remind him that this year is the 650th anniversary of Bannockburn. I remind him of what happened to a proud Edward on that day. Let him be warned in time.
Scotland is a proud nation. We are confident of our own abilities, given a chance, the opportunity and the circumstances. We in Scotland want that chance and opportunity so that we can play our full part in the regeneration of Great Britain. We welcome all the hard work which has been done over the past few years, even by the Board of Trade. The new industries which have gone to Scotland have found that it is a place where they not only get a welcome, but where they can spread fertile roots. We have shown exactly what Scotland can do and what the Scottish people can do. Our complaint is that the people who are working hard—the civil servants, the industrialists, the trade unionists and the local authorities who are searching the world to find new industries—are frustrated by the Government's policies.
Today, we attack not Scotland, but the Government, who the English electorate willed upon us. At the last election, if England had followed Scotland, and, indeed Wales, we should not have had a Tory Government. However, I have a feeling that the people of England have learned their lesson. In fact, all over the country there are Tory posters saying, "Two million new jobs have been provided in Great Britain since the Conservatives took office in 1951". That is, jobs for men, and boys, too. In the whole of Britain there have been 2 million new jobs in that time. What has been the increase in the number of jobs in Scotland? There has been no increase. There has been a reduction of 33,000.
When we look at the opportunities for jobs we remember the Answers

yesterday from the Ministry of Labour. In the London area every unemployed man has a choice of three jobs. In Scotland, every unemployed man has to compete with three other people, for there are four unemployed for every job available. What is the position for our young people? We had the figures for the middle of June. There are 28 jobs for every boy unemployed in Birmingham, whereas in Scotland there is not a job for every boy—and that was in the middle of June. I hope that English hon. Members will appreciate that since these figures were issued the position has become worse. Why have we not up-to-date figures? At the end of June another 40,000 young Scottish people left school.
The right hon. Gentleman used to be Minister of Labour. Let him look at some of the pamphlets issued by that Department and by the Scottish Department on technical training, telling us that once again it is as critical as ever it was for young people to get jobs and to get the right kind of jobs. Everybody knows that, and those who know it best are the hon. Members who represent Tory Scotland, the people from the rural areas. They include the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod), the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the hon. and gallant Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Commander Donaldson).

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: rose—

Mr. Ross: The hon. and gallant Member will have a chance of making his own speech.

Commander Donaldson: What the hon. Member said is not true. Last night we were listening to the same nonsense.

Mr. Ross: Does the hon. and gallant Member say that it is nonsense when I suggest that people have left the Borders? The depopulation of the Borders is one of the most neglected problems in Scotland. Everyone accepts that there is depopulation in the Highlands, but the population of the Borders dropped by 77,000 during the 10 years 1951–61. The only area in Scotland which gained population was Central Scotland. Thus, we had within Scotland a draining of population from the outlying areas. Agriculture has lost


20,000 workers over the last five years. People cannot stay unemployed in the rural areas; they go to the towns, and we have a repetition within Scotland of a pattern which we already see within Great Britain.
We have not just one Scottish problem, but a few Scottish problems. We have had all the analysis necessary in relation to the problem, and we know that what is needed is 40,000 new jobs a year in Scotland. We are losing jobs at the rate of 25,000 a year and we have been losing population at a greater rate in the last two or three years. The average in the last three years has risen to 32,700. To meet the needs of the unemployed and of a decline in industry the least we need is 40,000 jobs a year in Scotland—and that we are not getting.
This is the kernel of our argument—that in terms of the number of jobs provided, where they are provided and the kind of jobs provided, the Government are not meeting the demand. We know that the position is getting worse and that there will be further depopulation. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty knows it. For his area, the Local Employment Act in the last four years, faced with this, sort of problem, has provided between 340 and 400 jobs—about 100 new jobs a year; that is all.
What does the right hon. Member intend to do about it? Produce a plan? It is a plan in which there is no industrial content at all, a plan which is a confidence trick, a plan which was to be an election address for the next General Election. We heard about an infrastructure. I remember the hon. Member speaking about it. He said that the Tories would inject into the economy great new public investment, building up the environmental conditions which would attract new industries. He said that compared with 1962–63 we should spend £130 million. When was this said? In December, 1963. For a programme which was supposed to start in 1963–64, in March, they produced a plan in November—and they expect all the revelant comparisons to be made with 1962. In fact, welcome as it is, the increase is only £10 million, concentrated in one area and at the expense of others. It means that any additional benefits coming to parts of Scotland are denied to the rest of

Scotland at a time when we need Scotland to be treated as a whole—treated in the way in which the Secretary of State in the debate in 1962 said that it should be treated. The Government are "The Searchers", and we also have 'Cilla. In the same debate, in 1962, the noble Lady the Under-Secretary of State came to the conclusion that Scotland should be judged as a whole. Where is she today, when Scotland is not being judged as a whole? We have one proposal, which is not a plan, and we have no plan for the Highland areas, none for the Borders and none for the rest of Scotland. We have piecemeal planning and that piece is absolute nonsense.
We hear plenty about jobs. We keep hearing about them. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's tame public relations officer. I do not mean his civil servant; I mean the one who has the ear of the Scottish Office. During the Rutherglen by-election we heard what to my mind was misrepresentation—715 new firms were going to Scotland. Where are they? He went on to tell us that he could reveal the success of the Secretary of State's trip to America. He has become our special agent—" Michael Noble, Special Agent: Have kilt, will travel." Then it was that 57 firms were making inquiries. We started with 715 and we got down to 57. Then we heard that 19 were looking at sites, and eventually we came down to one firm which had made the decision three months earlier.
The right hon. Gentleman has been to Russia. I have a paper about it here. He went to look for jobs. He went to look at an agricultural exhibition. Had he come back from America a day earlier he could have seen the same Soviet Minister of Agriculture in Scotland, being taken around farms in Scotland, as the Under-Secretary knows, because he was there. We do not mind the Secretary of State doing his bit, but let us have less of the gimmicks.
The right hon. Gentleman could have helped the Scottish shipbuilding industry by taking an interest in its efforts to get ships built on the Clyde. We had some words about this today from the Prime Minister. One Scottish shipyard got a ship. There were others which could have got ships, because it was realised that the price was right. How-


ever, I understand that these firms received from the Admiralty the instruction that we could not have Soviet ships being built in the same yards as where our naval construction was going on. We could have done with the right hon. Gentleman's interest in respect of the Argentine; we lost an important order because the Board of Trade could not meet the credit needs. We lost it by 10 per cent. We can do with Ministerial help in the right place and at the right time. All we get are glittering gimmicks. They glitter, but do not dazzle.
When the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade spoke of regional development, he laid out three objectives. The first was to bring about a more even spread of economic activity throughout the country and thus make the fullest use of our resources, which should enable us to avoid excessive pressures in areas where demand is already strong and, in particular, where it is strong for land and manpower. He said that if we are able to achieve this, we can secure and maintain a faster rate of expansion.
From the figures of unemployment and job opportunity, is it not evident that this pre-election and induced boom, where so much money has been poured into the economy to sustain the fortunes of the Tory Party, we still have the same picture? Scotland is getting the overspill of that, and we are getting it late. But the demand for labour is just the same. The prosperous areas are even more prosperous, and the shortage is even more acute, but in Scotland, where there is labour, there is still not enough work. The Government have failed, and because they have failed in Scotland and the North-East the boom is already in danger. We have read rumours about inflation in the Press today. It may well be that we are trembling not only on the verge of a General Election but on the verge of a return to the credit squeeze before that.
No one in Scotland believes that the Scottish economy can sustain another attack by the Tory Party. We are in danger of getting back to where we were before. In 1955, the monthly average of unemployment was 51,000. In 1959, it was 94,000. In 1963, it was 103,000. In the right hon. Gentleman takes credit for the decrease this year, I would remind

him that, although the figure at present is 71,000, in 1951 it was 43,000. We have become resigned in Scotland to high unemployment figures.
No doubt we shall have the Government taking credit for the fact that the unemployment figure is only 70,000 in the summer time. Yet most of the young people who are working are in temporary jobs, such as waitresses at the seaside. When the winter comes they will be unemployed. Can the right hon. Gentleman give me an estimate of how successful his policies have been in the past three years in making any impression on the hard core of 80,000 to 90,000 unemployed that we have to endure in Scotland every year?
When we bear in mind the needs of the country, what the right hon. Gentleman said is right, that unless he solves this problem we shall not get expansion without inflation and we shall have the continued recurrence of the stop-go which has played havoc with the Scottish economy and the United Kingdom economy. The right hon. Gentleman hopes to get his new infrastructure mounted, and there is to be a considerable increase in the building of roads. We hope that the same will apply to schools and hospitals, but they were not mentioned. I should have thought that they and housing were part of the intra-structure.
In his first speech as Secretary of State, the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself as anything but satisfied with the construction industry in Scotland. Since then we have had a report on that industry to the Ministry of Public Building and Works which tells us that the Scottish Building industry is not geared to meet the demands upon it. The reason is that it has never had continuity. Because of the stop-go policy it could not organise itself. What has the right hon. Gentleman done to ensure that the industry will not be held up for lack of materials which have to come from the South, because there we have the same picture?
What confuses Scottish people is how the Government can imagine that we can take seriously their promises about Central Scotland and the rest of Scotland later, when we are presented with a document like the South-East Study, which indicates that, through natural forces,


there will be an increase of population of 3½ million in London and the South-East, and that the Government are to embark on an expenditure of not £130 million a year, but £1,500 million purely on environmental services. Does not this make nonsense of what the right hon. Gentleman said about regional development—that we shall seek to get a balance of regional development—when the Government are already accepting such plans as that, plans which will start to be geared while the Scottish ones are being thought of? It makes nonsense of the whole thing. We have there, as in the Midlands, an even more attractive magnet which will draw away from the Highlands and the rural areas of central Scotland population that we cannot afford to lose at the present rate without endangering the possibility of ever having a thriving economy.
The right hon. Gentleman said one true word about the Central Scottish plan, that we could not continue to lose young people at the rate at which we are losing them. The population loss of Inverness has been high. The Registrar-General has analysed it for us, and we find that one out of four of the young men between 18 and 40 have left. There is only one bright spot in the Highland area, and that is Caithness and Sutherland, and the reason for that is Dounreay, which is a public enterprise and a part of the "junk yard".
I ask the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade to give his attention to this matter. We are very concerned about the future of Dounreay. This is the hope for the Highlands, where we have seen a growth of population and new industry quite apart from the experimental station. What is now to happen? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer a straight question. If the new fast reactor is not sited there, would it be fair to say that Dounreay will fade out and that Caithness and Sutherland will enter into an era not of hope, but of twilight?
It may well be that the experimental station was put in the area because of the geographical location, but the fact is that it did go and the scientists followed. There is not a place in Britain where one could not put such a station, because people will go where their work is. The Secretary of State for Scotland

is refurbishing his local employment policy. He did it in 1960 and again in 1963. That policy would have been adequate to the aims of the Government in 1950, purely to provide a little diversification. The Government, however, missed an opportunity in 1953 when Professor Cairncross suggested growth points not only in one area, but all round Scotland.
If we are to embark on the kind of programme that I am sure the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade would like to see, we must have proper use of our resources of land and men. But the Government's policies are quite inadequate to the fundamental need. Every planning expert has told us that the task is dispersal of population and relocation of industry. Unless we meet these two requirements, we shall not be able to solve the vast problems of the monstrosities that stump across London every day.
I sometimes think that the Government could have done more in relation to employment and industrial policies if they had done nothing about London traffic. Sooner or later they will be forced to adopt a realistic policy for the dispersal of industry. They will have to use the country as a whole. We are not a large country and the possibilities, given good transport, are quite limitless.
That, however, will require a sensible transport policy. Is it not time that we shut Dr. Beeching's case book? Is it not time that we had a realistic policy in relation to transport by land and by air? Glasgow is only one hour by air from London. Indeed, one can get there more easily than one can get to the terminus of the No. 11 bus in London.
We must break the stranglehold that London has on the minds of British businessmen. The Government could do a lot more than they have done. Admittedly, they have made a start with the Post Office Savings Bank. I did not think that they would have the courage and even so they managed to do it the wrong way. Nevertheless, we thank them for the result. But we want them to do more.
Cannot the Government interest themselves in getting a good policy to link up our main centres of population by air? Dundee has been crying out for direct


air services to the capital for long enough but has not got them. The possibilities of shortening our distances are there but the Government simply do not take them. We feel that even Prestwick is being used as part of the game of the economics of B.O.A.C. Certainly, the resources of Scotland are not being used and I appeal to the Government to see that they are.
There are certain things that the Government simply must do. They must stop drifting and start governing. They must plan for the fullest use of our resources of men and land all over the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) last night gave an excellent exposition of what that planning means. Both national and regional planning are needed.
I see that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade smiles. Does not he realise the readiness of Scottish industrialists and trade unionists to co-operate with the Government if the Government will only give them a new lead? But they do not co-operate with the Government because they cannot. The Government's dogma does not allow them to accept that a Government should govern because government means interference with other interests. We have seen that in the Highlands. We see the modern clan warfare of the Clan Vesteys, the Clan Burtons and the Clan Whitbreads.
Sooner or later we must have regional planning and the relocation of industry. We must have a proper system to make that relocation possible. We must relocate to growth areas research and experimental units. I can guess what the Secretary of State for Scotland will say about planning. It is a rehabilitated word. He used it in an article in the Scotsman, last December. He said that for the first time we had a chance to plan. What have the Government been doing for 13 years that they did not have the opportunity before? The fact is that circumstances are forcing them into certain action but their dogma will not allow them to take it.
The Scottish Council says that we must have a national pattern of industry. It says that the plan for Central Scotland will collapse because it lacks the fundamental element of national industrial planning. The Council says that what we need more than anything else is an

opportunity to have the growth points of industry within the growth points of Scotland and that the growth points of industry are research and experiment.
I appeal even at this late stage to the Government to do something. We have a wonderful opportunity in Scotland, but we must ensure that we have a construction industry which is geared to the needs and properly equipped and capitalised. It can only get this with the prospect of continuing work. Within the regions, let us use the resources of the local authorities, of the trade unionists, of the people, all of whom are anxious to help but are frustrated by the Government.
In their view of the interests of the nation as a whole, not just of Scotland alone, the Government have shown themselves more responsible to pressures of privilege than to patriotism. Do not let them say a word about patriotism. It was not from the backstreets of Glasgow that a letter went from Hong Kong saying, "It may be anti-British, but it makes sense to me. Sell".
We have no desire to see Scotland becoming merely a training ground for building up skills for industry in the South and elsewhere and our Highlands and the Borders becoming merely the retreat of the privileged from the horrors they have allowed to happen in the South. If the Government are to accept responsibility for the well-being of the nation, both social and industrial, it is essential that they should have a plan and take powers to see it implemented. They would get the response and cooperation of Scottish industry, the Scottish T.U.C. and the Scottish people. But it is too late for the Government now to turn their backs on all the things they believe in and they will find in the coming months that they will be rejected by the Scottish people, unwept, unhonoured and unsung.

5.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): I regard this debate as being of the utmost importance. I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that it is not selfish for Scotland to have a day's debate of this kind


or to emphasise Scotland's needs, as the hon. Gentleman did. I profoundly agree because of the important part which Scotland has in the national life and because of the reasons which the hon. Gentleman quoted from one of my own speeches when I was dealing with the objects of regional development.
The hon. Member said that the Scots were a proud nation, and I hope that that will always be so. The last thing in my mind is that I should respond to his invitation to deliver a sermon. We all recognise that one of the great characteristics of the Scottish nation is its pride, and that this will stand it in good stead in the developments which are now coming about.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the annual report on the Local Employment Acts. It was not published on 30th July, last year, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. It was ordered to be printed on 30th July and was published on 19th September. It is customary for this Report to be published at about that time, and in the normal way it will be submitted to me for approval before the end of the month and will again be printed at about the customary time. There is no difference of approach to the Report.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he found that officials, industrialists, local authorities and many others were all working hard in the cause of meeting the problems of Scotland, but were being frustrated by the Government. Frankly, that is not what I have found in the four official visits which I have made to Scotland since taking up my present office, with responsibility for Board of Trade matters in Scotland and responsibility also for regional development, indeed, I have found that they are all co-operating fully with the Government in the plans which we have put forward and are certainly not feeling any sense of frustration because of Government policy in the work which they want to do.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the first objective which I described for regional development—more widespread industry. Of course, this is our purpose. He said that the job opportunities in the Midlands and South demonstrated that this policy was already a failure. I cannot agree. What the job opportunities

in the Midlands and South show is that the present industrial capacity of firms here is such that they are able to employ this additional amount of labour, or certainly a figure approaching it—there is a duplication in employment figures so the total may not be the same. Our task, as I shall elaborate later, is to induce fresh expansion in Scotland as well as in the other development districts. I want to give the figures to show what has already been done there and what is being done in the context of the problem with which we are faced.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the South-East Study and what it involves. I will have something more to say later about the South-East Study, because its relevance to Scottish development is of the utmost importance. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the programme put forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in the White Paper had no industrial content, and he implied that the investment was inadequate.
What are the growth zones other than an industrial content? The whole concept put forward in the Toothill Report, of concentration in the growth zones, is an industrial concept, which is different from, or a development of, the concepts lying behind the Local Employment Acts up to 1963. This is the industrial content. The White Paper said that we should concentrate on the growth zones and provide the necessary infrastructure for them and by this means induce industry to go into places where it was most likely to want to go and develop. That is the industrial concept of the White Paper.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the investment figures for 1963 and the increase in 1964. All this is in the context that 7½ per cent. of the population is getting 11 per cent. of the country's public service investment. What the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, and the Government, have to face, is whether, in the context of the country as a whole, the central zone of Scotland, with 7½ per cent. of the population, should have even more than 11 per cent. of the total public service investment.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that, he immediately brings into the argument the position of the North-East, the North-West, the South-West and other areas


which, because of high unemployment problems in particular areas—I agree, not as great as Central Scotland—are also asking for priority of investment. The Government have decided that Central Scotland and the North-East should have priority of public service investment and that, with 13 per cent. of the population between them, they should have 18 per cent. of the public service investment. This is giving them a definite and considerable priority.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: rose—

Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak when he winds up the debate for the Opposition. We did not interrupt his hon. Friend.

The question which has to be faced is whether Central Scotland should have a larger proportion of this public service investment, or whether the total public service investment should be increased. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has already said in public and in the House of Commons that the Government's undertakings in investment are the maximum which the country ought to be asked to undertake. I must, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman, when he argues in this way, to face the question whether other parts of the country are to have still less public service investment, or whether the total is to be expanded still further to give Central Scotland a larger amount.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is it not a fact that the greater part of the public service investment in the North-East and in Scotland is in housing provided by local housing authorities, whereas in the prosperous South and the Midlands a greater part of the housing is met by private enterprise for people who are able to become owner-occupiers? In the circumstances, is it not monstrous of the right hon. Gentleman to compare investment in housing by local authorities in Scotland and in the North-East with housing investment in London, the North-East and the Midlands, completely leaving out of account the investment in housing made by private enterprise in prosperous areas?

Mr. Heath: It would have a more beneficial effect if the hon. Gentleman

avoided the use of words like "monstrous". We are endeavouring, I hope, to reach a solution to Scotland's problem. I was comparing public service investment in Scotland and the North-East with that in the rest of the country. I was not comparing it with private investment; nor was I comparing private investment in the South with private investment in the North.
Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that because there is private investment in the South—he would say to a greater degree than in the North—the North ought to have a still greater proportion of public service investment? That is the only logical conclusion from his argument that there is more private investment in the South than in the North. What I am arguing is that the Government have already given considerable priority to Central Scotland and the North-East.
Public service investment consists also of the assistance which the Government give to local authorities. Therefore, the local authorities are also benefiting from the point of view of housing, roads, schools and communications. All this is contained in public service investment. What I am saying is that these two areas are getting this priority and I do not think that we can ask the rest of the country to take a still lower priority from the point of view of public service investment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: The north-east of Scotland—

Mr. Heath: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am talking about the north-east of England.
The other point I should like to deal with is this. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock really tried to discredit what is being done by saying that he did not want to hear about it. He said, "Of course, we shall hear about jobs provided, new factories and jobs in the pipeline." I regard this as of the utmost importance and therefore propose to tell the hon. Gentleman. Let him not try to discredit it by saying, "We shall hear the old stories over again." I hope to give him the up-to-date figures of what is being done. The final point is that the hon. Gentleman had no concrete suggestions of any kind to make as to how this problem should be handled.

Mr. Ross: You are the Government.

Mr. Heath: I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman that, if he is criticising what has already been done, then he should at least have some suggestions to make as to how more can be done and made more acceptable The hon. Gentleman said, first, that he wanted us to start governing. That is not relevant today. Secondly, he wanted a plan for the whole country. Thirdly, he wanted regional planning and a relocation of industry. Fourthly, he wanted redevelopment units.
What does this mean in practice? That is really the point with which we are faced. The hon. Gentleman used phrases like "a national plan" and "a regional plan ", but what do they mean from the point of view of industry which is going to provide employment in Scotland? I again ask the hon. Gentleman and his Friends to face this question. Does he mean that within the context of his national plan or regional plan industry is to have higher inducements to go to Scotland? If so, what are they to be? I find no criticism of the inducements offered to industry. Indeed, we know that they are as good as any offered anywhere in the Western world. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that it does not produce results. He must suggest what more would induce industry to go there. Are the inducements to be different, or is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should expand the whole economy further in order to get industry to Scotland? Or is he suggesting, when he talks about a location of industry plan, that industry is to be directed to Scotland?
On every other occasion that I have put this question to them the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have shied away from it and have said, "Of course, we are not going to direct industry in this country." Is that still their position or is it not? If the hon. Gentleman is not going to produce any inducements or is going to change them, is he going to direct industry or is he not? Hitherto he has always said" No ".
When the hon. Gentleman says that there is to be a location of industry plan, what does this mean? Does it mean that particular types of industry can go only to particular places, in which case what is he going to say when I advise a firm not to go to Scotland because I do not

think it would be suitable? Of course, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if I were to do that, and rightly so. Therefore, when we come down to the practical question of what is meant by national plan, a regional plan or location of industry there is no concrete proposal from him and his hon. Friends. What we have done is to concentrate the inducements and the infrastructure on zones of growth where we think industry is most likely to go. This is the best policy for any Government to follow. If the hon. Gentleman has other proposals to make, then let him say what they are. Hitherto they have never been produced.
If the hon. Gentleman says that he did not go so far as to say that he believed in setting up publicly-owned firms in manufacturing industry, what he did imply was that the Atomic Energy Authority was a model for this and that therefore there ought to be publicly-owned industries to manufacture in Scotland. If that is his proposal, let him say so clearly and say also which of these industries are now going to be publicly owned, which are the things that can be made profitable by public enterprise in Scotland or what he is going to set up and subsidise as manufacturing industry in Scotland. When the hon. Gentleman does that we shall believe that there is some practical content in all these splendid phrases such as "a national plan", "a regional plan" and "location of industry".
I want to deal with the problems which face Scotland, and I hope that I shall deal with them realistically because I believe that it is in the context of these problems that one must judge what is being done and what further can be done. The hon. Gentleman mentioned two great problems—the problem of increasing population and, without being specific, the problem of structural change. Both of these, I believe, are great problems. In the decade 1951 to 1961 the natural increase in Scotland was 340,000. The hon. Gentleman took a far longer range. It was 6·7 per cent. of the population compared with the United Kingdom average of 5 per cent. Of course, it is quite right that, because of the problem of this above average increase in population and the structural change, the total population increased by a much smaller amount. Actually it was 91,000.
In the White Paper proposals the Government's aim is to reduce this figure of migration, and to reduce it very considerably. The problem of the structural change is, I think, illustrated by the following figures. We have seen agriculture, coal mining and ship building as the industries mainly responsible for the decline in male employment. If we take the four years 1959–63, we find that employment in coal mining fell by 26,800, in shipbuilding by 12,300 and in agriculture by 7,800—in agriculture because of increasing efficiency and mechanisation and not because it was a declining industry. This was a total of 46,900—nearly 47,000—in four years; 47,000 jobs lost because of structural change.
This combined with the increase in population are the two great problems with which we are faced in Scotland today.
The Ministry of Labour employment figures for 1964 are not yet available, but, of course, the coal mining employment is continuing to decline for understandable reasons. We have seen the incidence of this following mainly on the closures in Cowdenbeath and Kilsyth, but with regard to the decline in shipbuilding employment, although it continued in 1963, the position since April has been rather better. Relatively few men have been discharged from shipbuilding, and the orders which were won in 1963 and 1964 will provide stable employment for some time to come in the yards concerned. In addition employment in the dockyard at Rosyth will be increased by about 700 over the next four years. Even more recently—indeed as we heard announced at the end of last week—Scotts Shipbuilding and Engineering Company of Greenock has won a contract for a further two Oberon Class submarines for the Royal Australian Navy. These are in addition to the contract for the first two submarines of that kind. The firm is to be warmly congratulated on securing these contracts.

Mr. John Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister responsible for trade, giving his support to the delegation headed by James Lenaghan, the managing director of Fairfields in my division, which is

now in Russia seeking to get new orders for ships?

Mr. Heath: I shall always encourage trade between the Soviet Union and ourselves, as I did during the visit of the trade delegation led by Mr. Patolichev. When we were visiting Scotland he told me that wherever tenders were competitive he would be prepared to consider the purchase by the Soviet Union of ships built in this country.
It is against that background of the structural change that I want to look at the assistance which has been given to Scotland, and the results of it. Up to 30th June of this year, three weeks ago, assistance to Scotland amounted to £58·7 million in the three years of the Local Employment Acts, 1960 and 1963. As questions have been asked about the total amount given to Scotland, I repeat that the figure is £58·7 million. It covered 521 projects, estimated to provide 56,000 new jobs.

Mr. Ross: Is the Wiggins Teape figure of about £9 million included in that total? It is shown in the estimates of the Board of Trade, and I wondered whether it was included in the figure given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Archie Manuel: It cannot be.

Mr. Heath: I understand that it is not contained in the figures that I have given. It is a separate figure.

Mr. William Baxter: rose—

Mr. Heath: I cannot give way now.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Herbert Butcher): Order. I think that it would be as well if the Minister were allowed to continue his speech without too many interruptions.

Mr. Heath: I can give the figures of I.D.C.s for the year ending 31st March, 1964. These were issued for 177 projects in Scotland, with an area of 5½ million sq. ft., estimated to provide additional employment of more than 14,000. This compares with 1963, in which there were 146 schemes for 3·8 million sq. ft., estimated to provide more than 9,000 jobs.
Those figures show the continuing increase over this period of applications for industrial development certificates for a very large area of factory space, but


I should also like to give the Committee the figures of applications for standard grants for building and machinery under the 1963 Act. As at 3rd July, there were 3,312 applications altogether. Of these, 2,431 have been dealt with, and firm offers have been made for 841. That is for the country as a whole. The figure which interests hon. Gentlemen opposite is that 48 per cent. of these applications were for Scotland, 28 for north-east England, 17 per cent. for north-west England, 3½ per cent. for Wales, and 3½ per cent. for the rest of England. They show that of the large number of applications for standard grants, nearly half were for Scotland, and they are still coming in at the rate of about 80 a week.

Mr. Willis: They do not necessarily produce jobs.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member says that they do not necessarily produce jobs. They are not eligible for grant unless they produce employment. The purpose of the grant is to produce employment.

Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman break down the figure? There are Section 1 grants for plant and machinery which are available for the first time to existing industries as well as to new ones. There are also the Section 3 grants of 25 per cent. for buildings. Can the right hon. Gentleman break down that figure?

Mr. Heath: I can give the figures for the country as a whole. There were 1,536 for buildings, and 1,776 for plant and machinery.
I want to emphasise how much has been done about advance factories, and the position as it is today. Since 1959, 23 advance factories have been approved for Scotland, 12 have been built, of which 9 have been allocated, and 3 are nearly complete. At the moment we are considering applications for the factories at Port Glasgow, at Stranraer, and Sanquhar.
The advance factory at Stranraer was taken over in May by Baby Dear Shoes, Ltd. It expects to provide about 300 jobs, mainly for women, but it has now applied for the factory to be extended from the present size of about 11,000 sq. ft., to 42,000 sq. ft., and we are carrying on discussion with the company about this expansion. This will be a valuable addition to the industry in Stranraer.
The factories at Newhouse, Vale of Leven, and Kilwinning, will be available shortly. At Peterhead the advance factory will take the form of re-acquiring an existing building from Euclid (Great Britain) Ltd., and we shall start construction of factories at Fraserburgh and The Calders. There has been difficulty in finding sites, but we shall soon begin construction on the factories which I announced on 30th April, at Kirkcaldy, Dundee, Donibristle, which I visited, Queenslie and the Vale of Leven. That is a considerable programme of advance factory building in which Scotland has had the larger share, and I believe rightly so.
As regards new industrial estates, the one at Donibristle, which was established in 1962, is now going well. There are four tenants there. An advance factory is to be built, and as the estate is within site of the Forth Bridge. I believe that it should benefit greatly from the opening of the new road route.
The estate at Bellshill, which covers more than 100 acres, is being developed. I can tell the Committee that we encountered certain planning difficulties there, but the planning authority is now satisfied with the proposals made by the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for Scotland and work on the estate's roads and sewers is going ahead.
Recently, I went to the Newhouse Industrial Estate which is a good example of the success of industrial estates as growth centres, but there is still room for expansion there. I have been greatly impressed with the development of Honeywell Controls Ltd. and Euclids which now occupy seven to eight times the amount of space they occupied 10 years ago. There are now 21 Board of Trade industrial estates in Scotland, with 348 tenants occupying 20 million sq. ft. of factory space in development districts. This is an indication of the amount which has been provided by the Governments of both parties for the development of industry in Scotland.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has reached a decision on his consideration of a further industrial estate for that part of Lanarkshire which has been so badly hit by the closure of both iron works and pits?

Mr. W. Baxter: The right hon. Gentleman said that the coal mining industry in Cowdenbeath and Kilsyth had more or less gone out of being. In the course of his remarks he rightly told the Committee what he was proposing to do in Cowdenbeath and in other areas, but he made a grave omission. He did not tell us what he was proposing to do in Kilsyth and other parts of Stirlingshire such as Plean, Bannockburn, Cowie and Fallin where the pits have been closed.

Mr. Heath: I had the opportunity of visiting certain sites with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) who is not in the Committee at the moment. I am giving careful consideration to the problems which she raised with me in respect of the sites I saw there. I shall be writing to her shortly. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) made representations yesterday about the problems of his constituency. I have not yet reached a decision as a result of our talk, but I will give careful consideration to what he told me.
What do the figures which I have been giving to the Committee mean in terms of jobs in prospect? There are now 40,000 jobs in the pipeline, 38,000 of which are in the development districts. These do not include the several thousand jobs which will arise from the transfer of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow or from the various other projects of which we know. There are four principal projects which are contributing to this total—the Cameron Ironworks at Livingston; Chemstrand, at Irvine; Robert McLaren & Co., in Glasgow and Philips Electrical Co. Ltd. in Hamilton and Dunfermline. Many companies with jobs to mature are immigrant companies. Altogether 37 companies came to Scotland from outside in 1963. Already, in 1964, 21 companies have decided to set up in Scotland from outside.
The hon. Member has raised a question which is always put about jobs in the pipeline. The general tendency is to underestimate what is being done, because of a lack of realisation of the loss of jobs which I have already mentioned as a result of structural change. Sometimes hon. Members indicate that in their opinion these assessments are too optimistic. But they are the assessments made by individual firms when

they apply to us for grants under the Local Employment Act. We have been looking at what has been happening in the past. Taking the figures between 1945 and 1963, of 123 immigrant or new companies which occupied factories in Scotland during those years, 54 further extended their premises after they had arrived. The additional employment estimated was 48,000 and, with the extensions which I have mentioned, about 78,000. This included 31,000 from factory extensions in the period 1960–63—a very large proportion in those four years.
The latest figures I have, which are for February, 1964, show that the actual employment in the 123 companies was about 61,000. We have no doubt that the estimate of 78,000 will be reached when these companies have finished the extensions which I mentioned earlier, which they have undertaken since arriving in their factories. The figures that I have given for the 123 new companies coming into Scotland show that the actual forecasts have been reached and exceeded, and that there is a good prospect of reaching the extended figures which they have given us as a result of their proposals for extension.
There are many companies in respect of which I could give examples of particular expansions which have gone far beyond the original estimates. For instance, Honeywell Controls, Caterpillar Tractors, National Cash Register and Burroughs are good examples of firms which have exceeded their original estimates. I hope that the hon. Member will realise that in giving figures for future employment we are taking the estimates on which we base the inducements allowed to firms, and the checks that we have made of the companies which have moved into Scotland show that these figures have not only been reached but exceeded owing to later extensions.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the Estimates Committee reported on the working of the Local Employment Act it made representation that the Board of Trade should produce, every three months, figures of jobs actually provided, as distinct from jobs in the pipeline, and that the Board of Trade accepted that recommendation, with reservations. The figures have


never yet been produced. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when they will be produced every quarter, as we suggested?

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member will recall that we explained to the Committee the difficulty of trying to elate the number of I.D.C.s granted to particular figures of employment in a period of three months, and that this was impossible as a co-relation between I.D.C.s and particular employment in a period of three months, quite apart from the other economic factors which affected that figure.
I have tried to take the full period of 1945 to 1963 in respect of specific companies that we have been able to check in order to see what has been happening in relation to their original estimates of employment. We have compared their estimates to the position in which they are today. This gives a broad indication, which is more informative and reliable than any attempt to take a three months' period and relate it to specific I.D.C.s, because I.D.C.s take so long to bring into practice, owing to the time of building, and so on.
I want to make three points about growth. The first concerns motor vehicles and motor components. At mid-1963 the number of people employed in the motor vehicle industry in Scotland was 17,300, an increase of 8,400 on the previous year. At May, 1964—and these are the latest figures that I have—about 16,500 people were employed in four firms—B.M.C., Rootes, Pressed Steel and Albion Motors. This means that the total number of people concerned with the motor industry now is just on 20,000.

The question of component manufacturers was raised at Question Time last week. In 1960, just over 12 firms employed about 10,000 people, who could be identified as producing something for the motor industry although it was not the main purpose of the firms. After the B.M.C. and Rootes proposals, 22 firms connected with the motor industry decided to establish units in Scotland. They are small units, employing altogether not much more than 1,500 or 2,000 people. The great desire for a major component industry in Scotland

to supply the motor industry has not yet been realised, but a number of small firms have set up in Scotland as a result of the motor industry's coming there.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the opinion of the management of B.M.C. in my constituency is that if a further major unit came to Scotland there would be a flood of ancillary industries, creating something of the order of a critical point? In the light of this information will the right hon. Gentleman do everything possible to encourage a third firm to come to Scotland?

Mr. Heath: That view has been put to me, and I fully realise the importance of it.
The second growth point arises in the case of the service industries in Scotland. Between 1959 and 1963 employment in these industries rose by just over 70,900 and in the construction industries by 25,600. There have been considerable increases in the distributive trades, professional and scientific services, and other forms of service employment.
The third growth point is in the engineering and electrical goods manufacturing industries, which expanded in these four years by 15,400. This includes an expansion of 4,800 on the part of companies making electronic apparatus. These show the growth points in contrast to the areas of structural change which I discussed earlier.
What has been achieved has been achieved as a voluntary movement of firms, and this depends on the inducements.

Sir John MacLeod: Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that what the motor industry wants is one big firm making component parts?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath indicated dissent.

Sir J. MacLeod: If that is not so, there is no point in my asking the question.

Mr. Heath: The motor industry feels that investment in Scotland at present is not sufficient to justify a number of ancillary manufacturers coming into Central Scotland, but they feel that if there were a third major manufacturer its


capacity would justify ancillary firms setting up. This confirms the view held throughout a considerable part of the motor industry, and it is of great importance.

Mr. Manuel: The right hon. Gentleman has been telling us about the numerous jobs which have gone into Scotland over this period. Is he aware that the census return for 1951–61 shows that there has been a drain from the Highland counties, including Perthshire of, I estimate, over 40,000 people in the 10 years? The population is draining away steadily each year. This is continuing today at the same rate, or even at a greater rate. Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything in his location of work and job opportunities to arrest this drain, which will be a calamity in the future years for Scotland?

Mr. Heath: My thesis has been that we are working against the forces of the structural change which has caused a loss of 50,000 jobs in the last five years. Nobody can say that the change ought not to have taken place. Indeed, it was bound to take place. I have been talking about the jobs which are being provided in an inducement to people to go to Scotland. Dealing with the point which the hon. Member made, the pulp mills are making a contribution. We are concentrating on the growth zones in Scotland which we believe most likely to attract industry, and we are carrying out studies of the Highlands and on the Borders for further action.
I have made a number of visits to Scotland, and I want to make some comment on some aspects of those visits. In particular I wish to comment on the impression made upon me when I toured parts of Fife on 1st June. I was impressed by the progress which they have made in tackling the problem of the rehabilitation of the area, in clearing derelict land and in restoring it. This is based on a sound plan into which they are putting very great energy, and I pay tribute wholeheartedly to what they are doing, because it is of immense value to industry which is thinking of going to Scotland to find that these problems are being dealt with. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is as keen as I am that progress

should be made on this in other parts of Scotland, too.
There have been discussions with the planning authorities concerned in respect of the Grangemouth and Falkirk area about the future arrangements for the growth zone, and I had a useful discussion with industrialists at Newhouse about dealing with the problems of going to Scotland. They emphasised that it is not only a question of inducement or indeed of plans from the industrial point of view, nor is it only a question of the calculations of the Minister of Transport about communications from one market to another. A very important factor in the minds of industrialists is that of the provision of housing, the provision of schools for their children and the provision of means of communication from the point of view of executives communicating with other parts of the country. These are all factors of the greatest importance, and that is why my right hon. Friend, in his programme, and the White Paper have taken the problem as a whole and why the rest of the public investment is so important when we are doing our utmost to persuade industry to go to Scotland. The hon. Member mentioned aviation. There was yesterday a meeting of the Scottish Council with the Minister of Aviation in which they discussed the points which the hon. Member mentioned.
I believe that as a result of the basis of the White Paper and the action which has been taken under it, and the efforts which are being made to induce industry to go to Scotland, the general approach in Scotland today is more optimistic and there is a greater spirit of confidence in the future. I have found that on my visits to Scotland, and I have found it to be growing over the past year. I believe—and the industrialists tell me this—that Scotland is on the move industrially and that they recognise that they are not looking to the past, where the historic industries were declining, but to the future, where the new growth industries are developing. I believe that this is a most important psychological attitude of mind and that it was for this reason that the Government's policy secured general support.
One of the other important aspects arising in these three years—and the hon. Member did not continue the point—was


that of the appreciation of the general environment into which industrialists are being asked to go. There is a recognition that it is a different way of life, in many ways perhaps a much happier way of life, than that of the congested industrial areas of the South and of England and Wales generally. There is a recognition that beautiful country is easily to hand and also a recognition of the importance of Scotland.
It was for this reason that I was particularly glad that we were able to have the Ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association in Edinburgh a fortnight ago. As we were in the Chair, it fell to us to offer this arrangement to the Council. The Council accepted at once and with alacrity. They were given a tremendous welcome in Edinburgh and immense hospitality. Every one of them commented on what an enjoyable as well as a fruitful conference it had been. It was the first time within living memory that an international Ministerial Meeting had been held in Edinburgh. There had been doubts whether it was a suitable centre or whether there was accommodation in Edinburgh for the conference. Edinburgh University made its building available to us for the conference—the new David Hume Tower—and this provided a first-class and ideal centre for the Ministerial Meetings. They were able to transact their business very efficiently, as well as very pleasantly. I hope that this was not an isolated occasion but only the first of many conferences and meetings which will be held in Edinburgh. It demonstrates our desire that these meetings should not be concentrated in London and the South but should be held in the other great cities of the country.
The hon. Member said that we should never achieve results, particularly in the construction industries, unless there were an assurance about the future. On 3rd December last I gave a very firm assurance about the Government's intentions in public investment. I said,
…even if it were necessary to moderate the growth of public service investment in the country as a whole, exceptions would be made for these growth areas where the programme will be maintained so long as the necessary resources are available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1963; Vol. 685, c. 992.]
The hon. Member will see that I gave that firm assurance on behalf of the Government and that therefore these industries

in Scotland can see that they have that assurance about future investment firmly on the record. I put it again on the record in order to meet the specific point which the hon. Member mentioned that in order to have increasing productivity and more efficiency, and to produce the answer from the construction point of view, they must have an assurance of continuity.
I was asked about research and development work. Earlier this year the Scottish Council issued a Report urging that this should be spread more widely through the country. On 5th May my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House that the Council's recommendations are being examined and that this examination is proceeding as fast as possible in relation not only to Scotland but to the other regions. I firmly believe that we must obtain a wider distribution of the location of research and development work over other parts of the country, and particularly in Scotland. I have said this in Scotland on my visits there, and I say it again to the House. Let us not under-estimate the difficulties of doing this. As I remarked when visiting Durham the other day, the boffins seem to be a rather shy group and have homing instincts by nature. This is our experience with many of them.

Mr. T. Fraser: What about Dounreay?

Mr. Heath: I agree about Dounreay, but I am speaking about the generality. I appeal to them to look at the wider interests of the country as a whole when they are considering this question, as many of them are bound to do, because I am sure that it is in the national interest that we should have this wider distribution.
I want to mention one sphere in which those in Scottish industry have been making very great effort in respect of their own firms. This was the visit of the Scottish chambers of commerce to Canada in May. I met the Edinburgh Chamber before it went and again after it returned. This was obviously a very worthwhile event. In June, the Scottish Council sent a mission to Benelux. I believe that all these things are a great help. What ought to be of most benefit,


perhaps, is the Scottish Industries Exhibition in Glasgow on 3rd September. This, I believe, can do much to help Scottish production and demonstrate an immense range of products, both for consumer goods and for capital markets. Again, I was very glad when, after our talk in February, the Canadian Minister of Commerce agreed that the Canadian Government could remove the tax discrimination against one of Scotland's major products, which is, of course, whisky. This will, I believe, again be helpful to Scotland.
I have described what is being done immediately, and the Committee is aware of the White Paper provisions for the long term. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock mentioned the South-East Study. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to face the facts. The facts of the South-East are that there will be a 2½ million increase by natural growth in the South-East itself. There is no doubt that provision must be made for that. The hon. Gentleman said that there should be a location of industry policy in a regional plan, whatever he may mean by that. Does he suggest that this natural growth should be moved out of the South-East? Of course not; he is not suggesting that for a moment.

Mr. Ross: What about the 1 million coming in?

Mr. Heath: That includes over | million retired people who will not want jobs, but who will come to the South to retire. Does the hon. Gentleman say that they must be given inducements to go elsewhere? I do not believe that that is a practical policy. It may be that the movement of population will change over the next 20 years. If so, so much the better. People may retire to other parts of the country. The best projection we can obtain is that well over ¼ million will retire to the South from other parts of the country.
The next projection is that well over ¼ million will be immigrants from overseas—from Commonwealth and foreign countries. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his hon. Friends have always urged that this should be allowed. Indeed, many hon. Members opposite objected when controls were introduced for the Commonwealth. Is

the hon. Gentleman saying that these people must be allowed in, but must not be allowed to stay anywhere south of a line drawn, let us say, from Birmingham to the Wash, or whatever you like? Of course not. This means that there will be over 3 million additional population coming to the South.
The last part is immigration from the rest of the country. This means just over ¼ million from the whole country over 20 years. This, spread over 20 years, allows for success in the North-East and in Scotland. We are being criticised by some who say that we have not made sufficient allowance for migration, because of the natural migration which always goes on between regions. Figures for that are available. Migration between prosperous regions is going on all the time.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The fact that the Secretary of State is not facing is that the plan in the South-East Study allows for a greater total immigration per year into the South-East over the next 20 years than took place in the last 10 years. How can he justify that?

Mr. Heath: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman has got it quite wrong, because we have not allowed for immigration on anything like the same scale from Scotland or from the North-East into the South. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that we are allowing even more immigration. The immigration is of retired people. If he includes them in his figure, it may be so. It includes the immigration of retired people and of people from the Commonwealth and foreign countries.

Mr. Jay: I meant exactly what I said. It is correct. I gave the figures in the previous debate. The total immigration of all kinds into the South-East over the next 20 years will be greater per year than the total of immigration over the last ten years. How can the Secretary of State justify that?

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we must stop retired people coming in or that we must stop Commonwealth or foreign people coming in? If he is taking the total figure for immigration, it includes both these groups. I say that we cannot keep out retired


people, nor can we say that Commonwealth and foreign people coming in can settle in only one part of the country. That is the fact to which the right hon. Gentleman must address himself.

Mr. Jay: The Secretary of State still does not see the point. The figures for total immigration included all those groups in the last ten years, just as it does for the next 20 years. Therefore, why is the total to increase?

Mr. Heath: Because we have an increasing and ageing population, in which naturally the numbers retiring are bound to be greater as well. The right hon. Gentleman cannot take the simple figures and say that it is indefensible. The figure for the immigration of working population is smaller. We are being criticised for not allowing a sufficient figure for this. If there is to be this increase—nobody suggests that it should be moved anywhere else—provision must be made for it.
I want to emphasise again that there are five safeguards for Scotland, as well as for the North-East, in this arrangement. First, it will be in the 1970s before the capital investment is required for industry. Therefore, this gives this run for the rest of the decade to Scotland. Secondly, the I.D.C. policy remains the same. I have made it absolutely plain to all industrialists that they need not think that the I.D.C. policy will be weakened, as long as we are responsible for it, because of the expansion in the South-East. Thirdly, in employment a very large amount—I have given the figure for services in Scotland—is bound to be provided by services which are inherent in any situation where there is a corresponding population. Therefore, the amount of manufacturing industry required for these people will not be so large as many at first thought.
Fourthly, we have given an assurance that inducements for growth zones will remain until the whole area has seen its unemployment fall and is experiencing substantial prosperity. The undertaking is set out in the White Papers. Fifthly, we have given the assurance that the priority of capital investment to population which I discussed at the beginning of my remarks will also remain. The South-East will not get priority for public service investment.
With these five assurances I believe that we have done our utmost to ensure that Scotland and the North-East are provided with every opportunity to get the industry which they require. Therefore, I believe that we should do our utmost to continue to encourage industry to go to Scotland, that we should also encourage the internal expansion in Scotland which is so desirable, and that with the immediate action which we are taking, and the long-term proposals set out in the White Paper, we can, admittedly with an immense amount of effort, overcome the problems of Scotland.

Mr. James McInnes: The Secretary of State referred to the development of industrial estates in Scotland. Why did his Department refuse the offer made by Glasgow Corporation to give it the 90 acres of ground contiguous to Queenslie Industrial Estate, in Glasgow? Would it not have been better for the Department to have accepted that offer?

Mr. Heath: Glasgow did not offer to give it to me. Glasgow, naturally, offered to sell it to me. As we already have in industrial estates in Scotland a large quantity of land, including the whole of the Bellshill Estate, to be developed, I thought that we should concentrate our resources on what we already held, rather than use further public money to buy these 90 acres.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the glimpse of imagination he showed in holding the E.F.T.A. meeting in Edinburgh. One of the difficulties about Scotland today is that too many people think that it is a backwater in which nothing ever happens, and they assume that all power and influence have passed to London. I hope that the Secretary of State will follow this up. I also welcome what the Secretary of State said about the need to bring research establishments to Scotland. Will he or the Secretary of State for Scotland give the Committee an assurance that, if there is a possibility of getting one of the United Nations agencies to come to Scotland, they will not only not oppose it but will promote it?
The Secretary of State challenged hon. Members on this side of the Committee


to say what they would do if they were in his place. That is exactly what I intend to do. Before coming to that, however, I want to make one or two remarks about the situation as the Secretary of State outlined it. He said that there were 40,000 jobs in the pipeline for Scotland. This happens to be exactly the same number as there are new jobs available every year in the London area. It is not a question of the pipeline there; every year for a number of years 40,000 new jobs have been created in the London area. Thirty thousand of these have been office jobs. Scotland, in contrast, is to get 40,000 over an unknown period.
He went on to point out that there had been a decline in some of the traditional and heavy industries in Scotland, but what I found particularly disturbing about the digest of statistics was the decline as between 1962 and 1963 in electrical and mechanical engineering and chemicals. This shows how sensitive employment in Scotland is to any downturn in trading or any attempt to stop expansion For example, if within the next week or two the Bank Rate were to be increased or a similar policy adopted, we would soon find that the employment figures for Scotland would take on once again a gloomy complexion.
If there are to be another 3½ million people in the South-East, that will be a quite intolerable situation. Over and above the additional 1 million immigrants, the Committee on the South-East should have given more consideration to the Channel Tunnel and what that may mean in terms of additional people coming to the southern area of the country. The right hon. Gentleman took a rosy view of the situation in Scotland, but he must remember that there are special problems facing Scotland, particularly the shipbuilding industry, as well as sociological and other problems in areas which for many years have been dependent on one form of employment. These areas have been suffering persistently high rates of unemployment, dating back to the 'thirties.
Having said that, I will no doubt be asked what I would do. I would, first, do something which I have suggested for years. I regret the necessity to have to say it again, but there should be a

national plan covering the whole of Britain, and that means covering England, Scotland and Wales. I have been saying this for some years, but if the Secretary of State will not take it from me, perhaps he will read paragraph 45 of the Crowther Report to the Minister of Transport entitled "Traffic in Towns," which stated:
In any effective programme of urban modernisation, such as we have been outlining, it is possible to distinguish four main stages. First, there must be a clear statement of national objectives. Regional planning cannot work in isolation. Unless there is a policy on a national basis dealing with the location of industry and population, from which would flow policies in respect of roads, ports, air facilities, etc., regional planning cannot be successful. Without such a policy it is impossible to know what populations and kinds of employment must be planned for locally, nor the rate at which development can take place, nor can there be any certainty that some uncontrolled drift of events will not reduce all local plans to futility.
Not only do we not have such a plan but we do not even have within the Government the machinery to make that plan possible. We must have such a plan, not just for England but for the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales.
It is not a coincidence that so much employment, particularly of a higher type, is concentrated in the London area. We have chosen to centralise influence and power in the South. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Scots are a proud people. It is because they are so proud that they should be given the chance and responsibility of running their own affairs. We must leave devolution to Scotland and Wales.
When considering the whole question of unemployment in Scotland it is important carefully to go into the question of the level of employment, the opportunities available there for highly skilled staff. A great deal of the work coming to Scotland is coming as a result of factories being set up by firms which have their main offices outside Scotland. These firms, from London or New York, leave their top executives outside Scotland, take their decisions outside Scotland and do most of their research and design outside Scotland. I am sure that the Secretary of State would find, if he talked to top industrialists in Scotland, to the universities and technical colleges there, that they are all keenly aware of the lack of top


employment in Scotland. This is felt by many Scottish graduates who today are assuming that if they want to get anywhere—receive good remuneration and have adequate opportunities of advancement—they must leave Scotland and go elsewhere.
It may interest hon. Members to know that while visiting a chemical works in Scotland 10 days ago I was told that although the firm has places for 100 graduates, only 85 of the places were filled from Scotland because of the feeling that has grown up that opportunities are lower than elsewhere and that, if they are to get on in life, they must seek employment elsewhere.
I mention these points in an effort to persuade the Government that that sort of high employment will not be available in sufficient quantity in Scotland until we organise centres of economic and social development; centres where a considerable nucleus of high level people can be available and employed. To secure this, there must first be planning so that there is, covering the whole country, a structure of regional development.
Crowther made what I have been saying for years abundantly clear, for this is needed not only for one or two regions but for the country generally.
There must also be development authorities. We will not achieve development in the Highlands until there is a really effective executive development authority. What have the Government done? They have picked out two regions—Central Scotland and the northeast of England—and that is their policy. It is entirely wrong as a policy. They are starting from the wrong end. They have picked out two areas in an attempt to start regional planning of the country. They are doing it in a piecemeal way instead of starting by taking the country as a whole and having a general conspectus dealing with the whole of our industry, population, transport organisation and other vital matters.
We need growth area points not only for the purposes of industry but also from the social point of view—to arrest depopulation in the Borders and Highlands. The Government's present planning may make things even worse because there is a strong possibility that the growth of Central Scotland will be

at the expense of the Borders and the Highlands. Depopulation is going on all the time and it would be regrettable if some areas were made more viable only at the expense of the already depopulated parts of the country.
Let us move on and consider what happens after a proper plan, covering the whole of the country, has been secured. In such a plan a certain amount of power must be given to Scotland, within the general framework of the plan covering the whole of Great Britain. Once regional plans for the whole country have been developed, one can consider the question of proper and adequate machinery to put individual developments into operation.
There is no profession in this country of experts in doing the sort of regional development we want and must have simply because there is no real development structure. The intelligent man from the university who wants to go into the sphere of regional development, as a scientist, economist, sociologist, and so on, does not have a profession open to him. I appreciate that we have development officers, but they are constantly leaving to take up other jobs, simply because they are underpaid and have too low a status. This problem, too, will have to be tackled if we are to have a proper and adequate structure for achieving development.
The Secretary of State went on to ask what extra inducements should be offered to persuade industry to go from the South -East to the North. I have made some suggestions and I agree that the Government have given considerable financial inducements to persuade industry to move north. Nevertheless, why will the Government not vary the rates of employers' contributions? Why will they not look at some of the proposals made by Mr. Colin Clark for differentiation in taxation between various parts of the country; having different tax arrangements for the under-employed areas compared with areas of over employment?
Why will the Government not consider the whole question of transport, housing, schools and amenities? The Secretary of State may recall an article which appeared in The Guardian some time ago in which it was pointed out that on almost every score the North and Scotland lagged behind the South. There


were more slum black spots in the North, more sub-standard schools and, generally speaking, worse communications. All these points must be given consideration and, in most cases, even greater emphasis will have to be placed on the north of England and Scotland if these deficiencies are to be put right because these areas have been neglected for so many years. It is not a question of giving them as much as the South but of giving them more.
On the question of transport generally, not only is it a matter of having a coherent transport system but of fitting it to our needs. The Secretary of State has himself said that industrialists attach great importance to fast passenger travelling facilities. What has been happening in recent years? Until recently at least the whole of the internal air routes in Scotland—that is, apart from those going to England—were served by three aircraft—fewer than the Queen's Flight, as I pointed out in a previous debate.
How many helicopters are available in Scotland? I recall that when I pointed out some time ago that helicopters fly to the Scilly Isles and asked for them in Scotland, the Secretary of State thought that that was impossible. Nevertheless, helicopters do make these flights and these and other aircraft are suitable for Scottish transport. We are not particularly interested in aircraft like the VC 10, for in many parts of Scotland, particularly the islands, those aircraft would need more than the whole island for taking off and touching down. There should be, however, reasonably cheap aircraft available which would be suitable for the transport needs of Scotland.
If the Secretary of State wants suggestions, I have given him a few. I do not want to delay the Committee, but I must refer to the Scottish Development Department itself, and this pathetic development report. Words mean whatever one wants them to mean, like democracy behind the Iron Curtain. We are not considering a development report but a rag-bag of odd statistics affecting Scotland thrown together in a hotch-potch of figures. There is nothing really about industry, or about transport. Fancy a so-called development report which excludes industry and transport.

I thought for a glorious moment that it would deal with industrial training, and, indeed, in page 42 we have a paragraph on training—"Training Courses for Sewage Works Operators". That is the only mention of training. Over the page we have a miscellaneous section which deals with public cleansing and scavenging, the Radioactive Substances Act—and litter. The Committee will be glad to hear that over 20,000 anti-litter posters were issued over the year. This is Scottish development. This is what will stop migration and set Scottish industry on its great surge forward. We find in these pages, also, under the heading "Public Conveniences":
The attention of local authorities was drawn in August to the Public Lavatories (Turnstiles) Act, 1963…
This is Scottish development. We also find that "voting by councillors" is dealt with, and there is a picture of concrete shuttering. But there is nothing about industry or transport or trade.
Who are the people in the Scottish Development Department? I hope that we shall be told how many economists are employed there, and at what rates of pay. How many men of any business experience have been inside the place? How many sociologists are employed there? What powers have they, and where do they get their statistics? Has the Department any power to undertake projects on its own? If it has such power, I can think of many better projects than those listed in this report. The right hon. Gentleman should look at the docks. Is he aware that one of the difficulties is that freight rates to and from Leith are greater than freight rates from Rotterdam? This is because bigger ships cannot use Leith and get return cargoes. This is where we might have real development, in deepening our ports and building up complimentary trade. Has he looked at what has happened at the dry dock in the Clyde? Has he looked at the whole question of Highland development, and whether we are going about it in the right way?
There is a useful article in the Scottish Journal of Political Economy. I do not agree with all that it says, but it is an expert and useful article on whether the amount of money spent in the Highlands is well spent. I draw the right hon.


Gentleman's attention to one of the conclusions in page 278. It states:
After total investments exceeding £220 million in the first ten years of the Programme of Highland Development, the population of the region fell from 285,786 in 1951 to 277,716 in 1961.
The Secretary of State spoke about industrial content. He said that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had said that there was no industrial content but that there was. But there is absolutely no skilled analysis of industrial content. It is not always a case of increasing investment but of investing more profitably.
He says that there are a few small firms making components for the motor industry, but has the Department found out how much extra demand Rootes is creating, and how much of what is nominally assistance for Rootes is going to the Midlands of England? Is it known what projects in Scotland do provide the employment and the input we want?
Again, in the article in the "Scottish Journal of Political Economy" we find the following:
As assessment of the performance of the Programme of Highland Development is limited by the poverty of statistical information on regional economic activity: however, the facts presented in this paper indicate that the Government's Highland Policy has fallen far short of its objectives of economic growth, viable communities, and ' opportunities for useful employment.' Reasons for the policy failure are not hard to find: there is no evidence of the application of economic analysis to the Programme of Highland Development.
We are haunted by this curse of amateurism—this belief that all that sort of thing can be done by well-intentioned men, many of whom were educated for different purposes in inappropriate disciplines. Scotland is being bled to death by it. It has serious problems that need serious and expert application. This work should be done by the Scottish Office, which should have a far stronger sociological and economic unit. But if the Scottish Office does not do it, someone else must.
There are serious questions arising in the shipbuilding industry. One can talk to any shipbuilder on the Clyde and he will tell one that already it is impossible for Europe to compete with Japan in the building of certain types of ships, and if this continues it will become true throughout the shipbuilding industry. Ships are getting bigger, and there is the difficulty

of getting them into the tiny River Clyde. We are building bigger ships, but who is giving thought to that aspect? Who is considering how we are to handle yards screwed up among the houses, roads and railways down the Clyde? It is not mentioned in the Report. In one Japanese yard there are 150 graduates. Who is wondering whether we are producing the right type of trained persons, and whether there are the right opportunities for them?
We can look at the question of office development. There is in the newspapers today reference to the Report of the Location of Offices Bureau. It is stated that the Bureau has managed to get 4,000 people moved from the centre of London to the suburbs. I have not read the full Report, but I gather that that is all that has been done so far. This is extremely serious. Why do not the Government send the Forestry Commission to Scotland? After all, there are 50 per cent. more acres under forest in Scotland than in England and Wales put together.
All this type of problem should be studied. Scotland has special problems, but no means of tackling them.
The Committee should rebel against the amount of information it is given. It is absolutely scandalous that Scottish Members should be asked to come to this debate with the amount of information they are given. The statistics are a year out of date, and on vital points there is no information whatever. This may be the last debate of this kind of this Parliament but, for goodness' sake, when we have a new Parliament let us bring expert attention to bear on these problems, and let us have a Scottish Office with more power and more guts.

6.27 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I have listened with interest to the rousing speech of the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). I thought that he was at least more constructive—or, perhaps, less destructive—than his fellow shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am inclined to agree with some of the things which the right hon. Gentleman said should be done, but then, of course, what one has to remember is that a great many of those things


are already being done by the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman made an eloquent plea for planning. When one gets the Leader of the Liberal Party calling for a State plan one really can say that we are all planners now. He emphasised, in particular, the need for regional plans, but surely that is exactly what the Government are doing with their plan for Central Scotland, which, as has been explained over and over again, is the first of three plans, and is to be followed by regional plans for the Highlands and for the Borders.
I must say that I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would give us a publication date for the other two plans, as that would save us having to say all this over and over again in every debate on the subject.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked, as have other hon. Members, of the need for better transport, better housing, better schools and better hospitals. When my right hon. Friend calls that the infrastructure, for some reason he is laughed out of court, but that is exactly what everyone asks for and what he is providing, to start with in Central Scotland and going on, we hope, to the Borders and the Highlands. I heartily endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the type of employment. It is a very unfortunate fact that in spite of the unemployment in Scotland there is also a shortage of technicians and skilled workers. I was very glad, for that reason, to hear what my right hon. Friend had to say about increasing Scotland's share of research and development. I hope that these two, a better supply of technicians and increased research and development in Scotland, will go hand in hand.
Nobody is readier than I am to recognise the magnitude of the problem which we face in Scotland, and which certainly exists in my own constituency as much as anywhere, or the difficulty of finding a solution. As the Toothill Report said, and I think that we all accept it, there is no simple or single remedy. But in spite of that, I still cannot help feeling surprised in every Scottish debate at the absolute refusal of the Opposition to recognise that there is now a very considerable improvement in the situation

and that that improvement is largely, though not entirely—because private enterprise in industry comes into it as well—the result of measures taken by the Government to encourage industrial growth.
I am also surprised by the way in which the Opposition manage to get through these debates without once making, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, any constructive proposals or suggestions whatever. It is quite true that my right hon. Friends are the Government, but even so considering the confidence with which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have about the outcome of the next General Election—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—a completely unjustified confidence, I would add, they might at least give some indication of what they would do if they came into power, though I suppose one can deduce a good deal from the presence of Clause Four in their party constitution.
It seems to me that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are determined to be completely destructive and to spread gloom and despondency on purely ideological and party political grounds, quite regardless of the facts and of the effect which this produces not only in Scotland but throughout the world and of the impression which they give of Scotland. What hon. Members opposite do not seem to recognise is that this is to some extent a matter of atmosphere and climate and that when progress is made it is made regularly in spite of them. The basis of the whole concept of growth points is that growth should be self-generating, but it will not be self-generating in the wrong climate. The efforts of the Opposition seem largely directed to making the climate as unfavourable as possible to growth.
Let us look at the history of the last few years. The Government have taken a number of measures to improve the economic situation in Scotland. First, there have been the Local Employment Acts of 1960 and 1963 and, secondly, the whole series of great projects such as in Ravenscraig, Bathgate, Linwood and Fort William—all encouraged and helped by the Government. There has been the Finance Act of 1963, and, finally, there has been the Government's plan for Central Scotland. What is more, all these measures are producing results.


But, in spite of everything, the Opposition persist in refusing to accept those results.
The latest report of the Federation of British Industries shows that more Scottish firms are now working at full capacity than at any time in the past five years. It also shows that 84 per cent. of the firms covered by the inquiry have maintained or increased the numbers employed in them. Let hon. members also consider the state of the tourist industry, in which I declare a small personal interest. The report of the Scottish Tourist Board—[Interruption.]—tells us that in the year 1963–64 more money was invested in the tourist industry in Scotland that any of the past 30 or 40 years, which shows that the Government does not always need to do everything for everybody.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. Member knows very well the great concern and anxiety in Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston and Kilwinning because of the lack of job opportunities and the heavy unemployment running at an average of 7 per cent. Can he tell us of a single factory in his own constituency which has been located there under the Local Employment Acts despite the fact that depopulation in his constituency has run at about 4,000 during the past 10 years and the number of the population is still going down? If one adds to that the unemployment figure there is a serious position in that area.

Sir F. Maclean: I will come to that, but perhaps the hon. Member will let me make my own speech. He has not done badly lately in his own constituency.

Mr. Manuel: It is not finished yet.

Sir F. Maclean: I am talking about the tourist industry which has done quite a lot to help itself, so much so that the Government tried to take a little money off it to help it still more. The fact is that in 1963 there were over 5 million visitors to Scotland, of whom nearly 750,000 came from overseas, and it looks very much as if there will be more still this year. This provides employment not only to the hotel trade and to every branch of catering but also to commerce and to the farmers. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock hit on the one thing about Scottish farming

which he thinks is least helpful, namely, that the numbers employed in Scottish agriculture are going down. He does not think of saying that the output of Scottish agriculture is going up steadily.

Mr. Ross: We are talking about employment today and we are concerned about the people who lose their jobs. We did not say that farming was inefficient, far from it, but the hon. Member, in a prelude to his speech, said that measures taken by the Government have brought about improvements. I am waiting for him to tell us how measures taken by the Government brought these millions of people to Scotland, including from overseas, and some to his hotel.

Sir F. Maclean: If there is a prosperous and happy atmosphere in a country it brings people in, and if that country's assets are exploited people come into it from overseas, but if we draw a picture of a gloomy depressed country, as the hon. Member does, we do not get those results. Although I cannot say that I have been lucky enough to receive any help from the Government, there is nothing to prevent anybody applying for help under the Local Employment Acts, or a hotel or other tourist establishment, and I certainly know of hotels whose proprietors have done that successfully.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about cutting the Clyde steamers?

Sir F. Maclean: I was coming to that and I was going to make a plea to my right hon. Friend to do what he can to stop that happening.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and I are seeing the Minister of Transport tomorrow and I hope that what we have to say to him on this and other connected subjects will do some good. It seems to me that one of the great assets of the Clyde are the steamer trips in the summer, and I cannot imagine that the amount saved by the British Transport Commission or the Caledonian Steam Packet Co. can possibly justify this cheeseparing approach to this problem.
To return, as I am sure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would like me to return, to the general question of


unemployment. With approximately 97 per cent. of Scotland's working population in jobs we have on average about 3 per cent. unemployed, and, if I remember aright, that was the figure that the late Hugh Gaitskell gave as his definition of full employment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: No.

Sir F. Maclean: That is my recollection. But it is certainly a very much more favourable figure than prevails in the United States, France, Germany or a large number of other highly developed countries. It is true that this is only an average. True, there are black spots and, as I have often said before, my constituency is one of them, although I am glad to say that there, too, the figures for this June are a good deal better than they were for last June.
However, if there are black spots, there are also white spots and they should be remembered too. In addition, the signs from the development districts and the growth points which the Opposition persist in ignoring seem very encouraging indeed. One of the most encouraging signs is that unemployment amongst school leavers is much lower than it was this time last year. Between February and June unemployment fell by 4,000 despite an influx of 10,000 school leavers. Between January and June vacancies doubled, despite the entry into employment of nearly 24,000 young people. All those are good signs.
I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade point out that out of £112½ million made available under the Local Employment Acts, £58·7 million has gone to Scotland. That is quite a good share. It also means 56,000 jobs. That surely is abundant justification of those Acts. What is more, my right hon. Friend told us that up to last week there had been over 1,600 applications from firms wishing to set up and expand in Scotland. That, I think, is more than four times the number of applications that were made in the previous 12 months.
In our debate on this subject in March—and here I come to the point which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire asked me to clear up—I mentioned two newly-established and expanding firms in my

constituency which had applied for aid to enable them to expand further. I asked my right hon. Friend to do what he could to press on with the consideration of their cases. I am glad to say that the Government's reaction in both these cases has been positive and that it seems likely that they will be given the opportunity to expand further. Those are both newly-established firms which are expanding already, and this illustrates extremely well the working of a growth point.
If the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will forgive me, perhaps I might trespass into his constituency, as he has done me the honour of trespassing into mine. As he knows, although I cannot say that he shows any sign of welcoming it, there is a growth point centred on Irvine. Look at the results that have been produced already.

Mr. Manuel: Before it was listed as a growth point.

Sir F. Maclean: It is also true that the hon. Member and I together pressed for an advance factory at Kilwinning and the advance factory arrived in advance of the growth point. There is also Chemstrant, the new nylon fabric factory, at Dundonald.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Member suggesting that this advance factory is in Irvine? It is nearer to Kilmarnock than Irvine. It is going to be at Drybridge.

Sir F. Maclean: Hon. Members persist in ignoring the fact that a growth point is called a growth point because it grows. If it is not as near to Irvine as all that, it shows how fast the growth point is growing. I am sure both hon. Members will agree that Skefco in the Irvine area is expanding and is providing more jobs.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is getting his geography mixed up. Skefco is not in the Irvine industrial estate. It is at Drybridge on the way to Kilmarnock.

Sir F. Maclean: Surely the exact location does not matter. As I say, this simply illustrates how fast the growth point is expanding. The great thing about these new industries is that they mean new jobs. I am shocked by the way in which hon. Members opposite struggle in order not to have to admit that there is any improvement in the situation and absolutely refuse to give the Government any credit whatever.


I am prepared to give credit to the Labour Government for some of the things they did when they were in office, but the same cannot be said of hon. Members opposite.
Between January and March, 1964, 50 new factories were opened in Scotland, providing 2,860 new jobs—twice the number in the previous quarter. In April, 1964, nine new advance factories were announced for Great Britain, five of which were for Scotland. At East Kilbride the development corporation has built 75 factories in the last nine years, all occupied and providing 8,000 jobs. At Livingston there is a new American factory which will provide 2,000 jobs.
Hon. Members opposite greet these facts either with groans or with laughter. The groans, I suppose, are because this is an American factory. We know the hostility with which hon. Members opposite greeted the news that American capital had been injected into the Rootes Group. There could, in fact, be no better news than that American capital had been injected into the Rootes Group.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member is talking such nonsense. He will be aware that Chemstrant could not come to Ayrshire at all but for the work, the efforts and the pledges of the Labour-controlled Ayr County Council which is prepared to spend over £1 million on a water scheme to bring water from Loch Doon to Drybridge. Is it not time that he stopped reading this prepared guff?

Sir F. Maclean: I am not criticising the local authorities in Ayrshire, whether they be Labour-controlled or not. The four burghs of Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Stevenston and Kilwinning have done a very good job, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire knows, in trying to promote prosperity in that part of the world, and I take off my hat also to the Irvine Council which has done an extremely good job. But this does not stop hon Members opposite making a terrific fuss at the news that an American company had injected some capital into the Rootes Group, so much so that they completely overlook the benefits which might, and probably would, be brought to Scotland.
In exactly the same way, hon. Members jeer at my right hon. Friend for his visits

to America. They say, "What is the good of his going there?" In fact, a lot of good has been done. A lot of American industry has come to Scotland since my right hon. Friend's visit. There are now over 60 companies of North American origin in Scotland.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman's visit?

Sir F. Maclean: No, not since his visit, but I have already mentioned at least one American enterprise which has come since his visit. That happened only a few months ago.
The fact is that, in all these things, hon. Members opposite are guided by strong ideological obsessions.

Mr. Ross: What about Tito?

Sir F. Maclean: Tito has his own ideas and, on the whole, he makes them work a good deal better than hon. Members opposite would, and he has a much more realistic approach than they have. Both at home and abroad, hon. Members opposite are persistently out of date. They are still the slaves of a nineteenth century Marxist Socialist ideology. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned Tito. When Tito starts introducing things like commercial television, it is high time for hon. Members opposite to start pulling up their socks. They are the slaves of Clause Four. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear assent to that, because I understand that there has been a certain amount of difference in the Labour Party between those who support Clause Four and those who are not so keen on it.

Mr. Willis: Where did the hon. and gallant Gentleman dig this stuff up?

Sir F. Maclean: From accounts of Labour Party conferences.
In their attacks on American firms coming to this country, in their sabotage of the Spanish frigate deal, and in—

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The Argentine ships?

Sir F. Maclean: —and any number of other things, hon. Members opposite show how their minds are obsessed by ideological prejudice. Surely, if Castro can trade with Franco, hon. Members opposite need not be so fussy about it. They are completely out of date. They


still have not made a single constructive proposal as to what they would do. As far as one can make out, their only answer, like last time, would be to nationalise everything they could lay their hands on. They would direct industry and direct labour. And as for Scotland, their only answer to her problems would be to bring in a lot of money-losing State-owned factories.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I wish that the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) could be script writer for the Prime Minister. He has made the kind of speech which I like to quote in my constituency, because, otherwise, people could not believe that the Tories indulge in such utter nonsense and irrelevancy about the problems of Scotland.
Both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade quoted figures. Then comes the question: why did the Government lose Rutherglen? If the Government's record is so wonderful, why were the people of Rutherglen so ungracious as to kick out the Tory candidate and return the Labour candidate? Hon. and right hon. Members opposite ought to understand how completely disillusioned and angry the Scottish people are at the Government's record over the past 12 or 13 years.
The Prime Minister goes round the country telling people what the evils of Socialism would be and what the benefits are which they have derived from his Government's period of office. The right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber today for exactly one hour. He was sent for because my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) commented critically on his absence. He has now gone, and we shall probably not see him again until the Secretary of State for Scotland gets up to speak. Why did not the Prime Minister choose to take part in the debate? If the Government's record is so wonderful, why did he not treat the Committee to the scintillating oratory which we all expect of him? If the record were so good, he would have come to the Dispatch Box instead of transferring the speech, as he transfers his Questions, to

the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade.
Of course, one does not deny that certain things have happened in Scotland. We have got the motor car industry, we have got the pulp mill, and so on. But the basic facts show clearly in the bare statistics of unemployment which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock gave. In June, 1951, there were 42,310 unemployed in Scotland, and in June, 1964, there were 70,617. Those figures express in summary form what the Government have achieved—a 64 per cent. overall increase in registered unemployed in Scotland.
More than that, the relative position of Scotland as compared with other regions, particularly London and the South-East, has worsened in the same period. Between June, 1951 and June, 1964, the increase in unemployment in London and the South-East has been 36 per cent. In Scotland it has been 67 per cent., so, relatively, we are in a worse position than we were 13 years ago.
These facts were confirmed by the figures given in the House yesterday by the Minister of Labour. The Minister of Labour's complacency yesterday was quite breathtaking. He said, in effect, "We are doing better than we did last year, with 24,000 fewer unemployed". This means that there were 94,000 people unemployed in June, 1963. This was the kind of figure which we attacked during mid-winter. The right hon. Gentleman said that the position was improving and that this was what mattered.
Plainly, whatever the Government might have done has not been enough. We had a fanfare of trumpets when the White Paper on Central Scotland was produced. It was something new, something revolutionary. Certainly, in Britain it was. But elsewhere in Europe there has been national planning for very many years. What is called in Italy, the Vanoni plan, had its genesis in 1949, four years after the war. It anticipated the creation of 4 million new jobs between 1955 and 1964.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: And with 9 per cent. unemployed.

Mr. Hamilton: Of course; but they have a national plan. This is the point that I am making. Our argument is that we must have a national plan before we think about regional plans.
It has often been repeated in this Chamber that France has long-term national planning, although one must admit—and I freely admit—that there is a greater degree of central direction and dictation in France vis-à-vis the regional authorities than probably we would tolerate in this country. The Republic: of Ireland recently published the second part of its second programme for economic expansion. Its national plan envisages a 7 per cent. annual increase in industrial output between 1960 and 1970. Our target is 4 per cent. Even Spain, about which we have heard a lot recently in this Chamber, produced on 1st January this year a four-year economic development plan with the aim of a 6 per cent. annual growth in the gross national product.
In almost every case national plans have been worked out before regional plans, although the relationship between them varies. I think that this is a common factor among them all. The only revolutionary thing we have done is to put the cart before the horse. We have put the regional plans before the national plan. It is like trying to fit a jigsaw puzzle together without looking at the overall picture. This is what we are trying to do. It is the kind of amateurism about which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was complaining. We do not know what the national plan is and, therefore, there is no guarantee that the regional plans produced will fit the non-existent pattern of a non-existent national plan.
Let me give three examples of inadequacy of provision in Government policy. I quote, first, what might appear to be a relatively small local constituency problem. There is a small boat-building firm, Marine Services, in a small but lovely seaside resort in Fife—Aberdour. It does not employ very many people. When it applied in December, 1962, for a building grant under Section 3 of the Local Employment Act it employed one woman, four apprentices and five skilled men. It wanted to erect a new building which it estimated would cost about £7,000. It estimated, too, that within a

year of completion of the new building it would be able to employ another ten men and possibly 30 within three years. As I say, it made its application on 21st December, 1962. On 7th June, 1963, its application was rejected—six months to say "No" to an application for £6,000 or £7,000.
I wrote to the Board of Trade in February this year. It replied," B.O.T.A.C. has been set up as an independent body of businessmen to make decisions. We cannot interfere and we cannot tell you the reasons for its rejection of the application ". My argument is the same as that which was used by Sir Robert Maclean, when he gave evidence before the Estimates Committee on the working of the Local Employment Act. He argued very forcibly that we should make every endeavour to encourage the small man with enterprise and initiative, and if that means more risk capital being staked by B.O.T.A.C. that does not matter.
I do not want to say in public what I might say about this small firm, but I know that the men at the top were very anxious to go ahead. They have the technical skill, although they might not have the accountancy and business ability which one would like. Nevertheless, I think that B.O.T.A.C. should have taken the risk and said, "This is just the kind of small industry which we want in that part of Fife. Go ahead, and if the £6,000 is lost, so what?". Yesterday's disclosures about the VC10, Blue Streak and the millions of pounds being thrown down the drain, while, for £6,000, this small firm is given the brush-off, seems to me to suggest that the Government are not serious when they say that they want to encourage small firms of this kind.
I turn to the second example of inefficiency and inadequacy in what the Government are doing or pretending to do. The White Paper on Central Scotland makes some platitudinous remarks about the desirability of providing more office jobs in Scotland. Certainly, since then we have had the decision on the Post Office Savings Bank, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock said, the matter could not have been handled in a worse way from the point of view of public relations with the unions concerned.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, today's newspapers show that the success of the Location of Offices Bureau has been extremely limited. It has just managed to put such offices as have decided to move in the suburban areas of London, thus adding to the commuter problem. It was also stated in this morning's newspapers that the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in a speech at Eltham last night, admitted that far too many offices had been allowed to be built in London, that £8 million worth of office building was standing empty in London and that 8 million sq. ft. of office building was standing empty in Great Britain.
This is the very antithesis of planning. The Government should take action, and I hope that a future Government will do so, to curtail office building in the London area much more drastically than has been done hitherto. I refuse to believe, and I think that most thinking people refuse to believe, that the Location of Offices Bureau is an adequate or the only answer to this problem.
I come to the third example of what could be done by the Government, but is not being done. I refer to the Location of Government research establishments and those of nationalised industries and their headquarters. Looking at the nationalised industries, I take, first, the gas industry It has five research stations. Four of them are in London and one in Solihull, Warwickshire. Why is there not one in Scotland? We have a quite big Scottish gas industry. Why should the research for the whole of the gas industry be in London and the Midlands?
The electricity industry has its headquarters and production, inspection and test sections in London and its research laboratories at Leatherhead, Surrey. Its engineering laboratories are at March-wood, Southampton. All the research for Scottish electricity is done down here. Why should this be so?
The coal industry, through the Coal Board, has its headquarters in Hobart House, London. Why should not those headquarters be directed into one of the mining areas? That would be one of the great advantages of public enterprise. The Government have control over its location and there is no reason why the Board's headquarters should not be out-

side the capital. It just happens to be convenient for it and for the employees to be here. It was, of course, convenient for the Post Office Savings Bank employees to be down here, but it was deliberate Government policy to direct that Department to Glasgow. What applies in that case should apply to the headquarters of some of the nationalised industries.
The address of the Coal Utilisation Council is Rochester Row, London, and that of the British Coal Utilisation Research Association, Leatherhead, Surrey. The only reasons for these locations can be that the weather is nice, the climate mild and they are situated near the great magnet of London. If the Government are serious about this matter, they should give these people notice to get out. They have the power to do so.
I am not afraid of the words "direction" and "control" Last Friday, we had a debate on spray irrigation. The Government used the word "control" 13 times in the first three Clause of the Bill, so they should not be afraid of controls. Nor are they when it suits them.
British Railways' Research Department is at Blandford House, Melbury Terrace, London. I have looked up the D.S.I.R. research associations. In Appendix IV of the 1963 Annual Report, 38 of them are listed. All of them get Government grant, which, in some cases, is substantial. Of the 38, only one is in Scotland, and that is the Jute Trade Research Association, which could not very well be anywhere else than in Dundee. Appendix III of the D.S.I.R. Report lists 15 research stations, of which only two are in Scotland, the Torry Research Station and the National Engineering Laboratory, at East Kilbride.
This is evidence of something that the Government could do and it is something about which the Scottish Council has made representations. So long as we have all this research for the nationalised industries and the D.S.I.R. laboratories in London and the South-East, London will remain the main attraction. That is why the Government's South-East Study accepts this as inevitable. The Government are not planning to remove population from London, but are planning for the inevitability of its increase by 3½ million.
Why should the Government fatalistically accept this as inevitable? If they were serious about dispersal, they would have made plans on the assumption that there would be a diminution in population in the South-East. Certainly, they would have done nothing to encourage the coming into the area of 1 million people plus a natural growth of 2½ million or whatever the figure is. I have given these three examples to show what additional measures could be taken.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade chivvied hon. Members on this side of the Committee about direction of industry and publicly-owned industries. It is stated specifically in our election programme (a) that industry will not be directed and (b) that publicly-owned industries will be established. Nothing could be clearer. Where public money is being spent on research, publicly-financed industries which are based upon that research should be publicly owned; and where public money is injected into private enterprise the public should have a share of the equity. There is nothing wrong in that and nothing could be clearer.
As I have said before, we have stated, for example, in our plans for the National Health Service, that because of the extortionate profits which are being made by the firms which are supplying drugs to the National Health Service we shall establish publicly-owned drug manufacturing concerns which will be sent into the areas of unemployment like my own and many other parts of Scotland which are feeling extremely frustrated and angry at the inadequacy of the Government's provisions to date.
These are specific proposals. Nothing could be clearer. We understand that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite violently disagree with them. Very well. We will fight the election on them. Nothing could be fairer than that. If Rutherglen is any indication, we shall have nothing to fear when the time comes.

7.17 p.m.

Sir John MacLeod: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton), although there was a great deal in his speech with which I disagreed. I certainly agree with the hon. Member, however, concerning science

laboratories and the like. There is no doubt that the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) were quite right in saying that Scotland lacks the top people in this respect. Industry naturally goes to the areas where scientific research and the like are carried out.
I could not agree more with the hon. Member when he said that the position in London is getting ridiculous. London and this area of England are grossly overcrowded. When a national emergency such as war arises, everybody rushes to get out of London as quickly as possible. When war is over and peace returns, the people stream back into these areas. I remind the hon. Member for Fife, West, however, that his party were in power in 1949 when the Italians produced their national plan. I do not remember the party opposite producing a national plan during their six years of office.
The White Paper on Central Scotland was certainly an important step in the planning of public investment and land use. It was of major importance to Scotland. Like other hon. Members, however, I am worried about the effect that this will have upon areas such as mine in the Highlands of Scotland. I am glad that the Government, through the Scottish Development Group, are studying the economy of the Highlands and Islands and the related physical and social problems.
My reasons for welcoming that study are easy to explain. I have always maintained that we must have a greater distribution of industry in this country of ours. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who mentioned the Cairncross Report. The Government should have taken more account of that Report in 1953. It is obvious that when we have burghs and small county towns where facilities already exist, those are the areas in which it is easiest to build and develop. Cairncross is in a very powerful position now, and I hope he still holds these views and can exert some influence on the Government.

Mr. Ross: There is another man in a very important position who at the time was Minister of State for Scotland—the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister turned this down when he was


the Minister of State. What chance is there of his supporting it now that he is Prime Minister?

Sir J. MacLeod: I think there is a greater chance. My right hon. Friend has done, as a farmer, a great deal for the farming community. I hope that he will follow this up. [Interruption.] The Price Review was welcomed by all sections of the farming community and was a great stimulus to it.
We must have more distribution of industry. The position in Scotland is certainly acute. There is a gross over-concentration in the Scottish industrial belt, and the tendency seems to be to continue to concentrate industry there. However, nobody in Scotland begrudges that increased industrial activity, and hon. Members opposite recognise this. I think of the motor vehicle plants at Bathgate and Linwood and the new dock at Greenock. The hon. Member for Fife, West also mentioned the move of the Post Office Savings Bank to Glasgow.
I shall confine my remarks to the Highlands and Islands. I am sure no one will forget that the Highlands and Islands represent 47 per cent. of the area of Scotland. It is an area which in the past has been a breeding ground for the industrial belt in the South. My father had to move out because there was nothing for him to do in the area. Luckily, he made his fortune in the South and was able to go back and spend a good deal of it in the Highlands. There are many hon. Members with Highland names whose forebears came to the South, and they were perhaps not as fortunate as I was in being able to go back and live in the North of Scotland.
In Scotland we now have 4 million people, but only 270,000 live in the Highlands and Islands. Depopulation of the rural areas is still taking place. The largest rural area in the Highlands is one of the few areas in the country today—there are some areas in Wales and to a certain extent in the South-west—which are capable of being developed.
The Scottish Development Group certainly has a great deal of material for its study. Will all the reviews of and reports about the Highlands it has a

mass of information. More than 20 Government departments and other bodies are dealing with problems in the Highlands and Islands. The sorting out of this lot alone must be a problem!
I feel that things are improving and on the move. I believe that the Government are now beginning to achieve things. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, West that there is still a lot to do in respect of Scotland as a whole and the Highlands. But changes are taking place in the world, with science and technology, and these changes are certainly, though perhaps to a smaller extent, being felt in the Highlands.
I hope that the survey by the Development Group will convince the country and the Government that the Highlands have a larger part to play in the national economy. We must ensure that the best possible use is made of our many natural resources in the Highlands, and we must make the most use of our land in every sense. In the Scottish Grand Committee this morning we debated forestry, and I think all would agree that there is still a great deal of waste land in Scotland. I agree with hon. Members who say that the deer forests, for instance, represent a great deal of misuse of land. I am sure that a great deal of forestry could be developed there, to the benefit of the whole area.
The first thing that must be done in studying the Highlands is to set up machinery to co-ordinate the work of the various Government Departments and other agencies in the Highlands and elsewhere. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) ridiculed the Report on Highland Development, but I would draw attention to what appears on page 18:
The Highland County Development Officers have had regular meetings under the auspices of the Department with representatives of agencies and Departments concerned with Highland development. These meetings provide a forum for the exchange of views, and ensure that effective contact is maintained between the local authorities. Departments, and executive bodies concerned with industrial development in the Highlands.
That might not sound very much, but I submit that it is certainly an initial step towards the achievement of some cooperation. I agree that something much more definite must be done.
I am coming round to the view that we should have some form of development


authority for the area, but what is being done is certainly a step in the right direction. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the development officers. There seem to be good personal relations between the Development Group, the development officers and the Board of Trade. Since the establishment of the development officers, the county councils have certainly been feeling their way in regard to the duties of those officers.
The object should, after all, be to encourage the development of existing businesses and, if possible, to attract new industries. But the county development officers must surely have full regard to all the industrial potential and facilities in their areas—premises, sites and so on—so that any prospective industrialist, small or large, can find out what there is to offer in the area.
Although in many instances these officers are under the county council planning authority, it is right that they should be in the closest contact with the Development Group and the Board of Trade. They must play their part as co-ordinators. I understand that the Opposition recognise that there should be a Highland development authority. We must find out—I am trying to help in this—what that means, what they are going to do and what powers they will take from the local authorities. The local authorities themselves must know this if we are to get their co-operation.
As I see it, these development officers should co-ordinate the various agencies and bodies within their own areas, cooperating with the Development Department of the Scottish Office and the Board of Trade. The first step lies in industrial development. They must also be able to tell local authorities and others where and how Government grants may be obtained. I have had a letter from the district council of Girloch producing ideas and asking me for advice. Obviously, a local authority must go first of all to development officers, who should be able to give them advice and who are in contact with the Board of Trade and the Development Department of the Scottish Office.
Local authorities are employing development officers for industrial development and I understand that the Scottish Council is also employing someone for

the same purpose, as is the Scottish Industry Development Board. There may be room for more but we do not want too much overlapping. All this should be co-ordinated by the Development Department at the Scottish Office.
Much remains to be done. The hon. Member for Fife, West mentioned a small shipbuilding firm and I could not agree more with him. The Board of Trade helps smaller firms more than one thinks under B.O.T.A.C., but there is the snag that he himself mentioned. He said that the directors of that small concern were technically sound but had perhaps slipped up in accountancy.
The trouble is that many of these small firms find it difficult to deal with their accountancy side. There is a grave lack of accountants in the rural areas and certainly in the Highlands. We must do more to help small firms solve their accountancy problems so that they are able to present their case properly to the Board of Trade. The Scottish Council could help in a practical way in this respect. We have to look at some of these industries to see whether they are viable and economic. The hon. Member will agree that there is nothing worse than setting up an industry in an area and then seeing it close down two or three years later.
Although a lot remains to be done in the Highlands, things are on the move. There is greater expenditure on roads, for instance, and I welcome the setting up of the Highlands Transport Board to co-ordinate transport in the area. No development can take place without adequate communications. Of course, services are difficult in a large area which is under-populated and whose people are scattered. I am glad that the railway line has been reprieved, but people are still worried about how long the reprieve will last and about the alternatives the Government have in mind. I hope that tonight we shall hear what those alternative methods are to be.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the air services. It is scandalous that, in the whole of the Highlands area, only three aircraft are working. One so often hears it anounced over the loudspeakers that technical trouble has caused delay for an hour or so. This is because they have not enough aircraft available. Complaint is


still made that the services are uneconomic, but it is impossible very often to get a seat on a plane north of Glasgow. Time and again, I have found myself, 10 days to a fornight in advance of the trip, on the waiting list for a flight from Glasgow to Inverness. It is scandalous that there are no proper air communications in the Highlands.

Mr. Rankin: What representations has the hon. Gentleman made to B.E.A. in order to improve the service?

Sir J. MacLeod: I have written so many letters about it that tomorrow one of the head chaps is coming to see me here about it. I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will join me at about 11 o'clock tomorrow morning and we can discuss the matter, as he is so interested.

Mr. Rankin: I should love to be with the hon. Gentleman, but he cannot fling an invitation at me like that and expect me to accept right away.

Sir J. MacLeod: As the hon. Gentleman intervened I thought that I would graciously ask him to help me. I hope he will come if he can.
I welcome the fact that the Highland Fund is to be used for the administration of loans and the granting of £50,000 to help small industries. The Fund has already helped considerably. In a country with a sparse population, any small industry which employs only a few people is of great value. The Highland Fund is doing a good job and I am glad that it, too, is working towards greater co-operation with other bodies.
One suggestion put by the Scottish Tourist Board takes up a point which I myself have raised before and which has often been made. I must first declare an interest because I have a small interest in hotels in the Highlands. A hotel on the west coast of the Highlands is equally as valuable to the area as a small industry and the Tourist Board urges the Government to recognise hotels as an industry. The Board says:
Further, the industry must, without delay, be recognised as an industry: hotels and boarding houses should receive from the Government fiscal concessions so that their development can proceed more rapidly. The cost of improvements, extensions and repairs should, as in many other industries, be chargeable to revenue and not to capital as at present,

and industrial building allowances should apply to the entire hotel and catering industry.
I am sure that is right.
We are encouraging more and more people to go to the Highlands and we have not enough accommodation at the height of summer. It is difficult for hoteliers under the present system to make additions to their buildings. The Tourist Board's suggestion should be taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hotel industry should get the advantages that other industries enjoy. The Government's assistance to crofting houses will certainly help to provide more accommodation.
Despite what the Opposition may say, the Local Employment Acts of 1960 and 1963 have had an effect in the Highlands. In my own area there are the Invergordon Distillery, the Dingwall Engineering Company and the Evanton Box Making Company now employing 120 people and all assisted under B.O.T.A.C.
We must recognise the Invergordon-Inverness area as a growth area. We have proved that industries can move into the area and make it a rational, reasonable and economic reality. There is a breakthrough. It must be right to encourage and stimulate the growth of industries in these promising localities. I am not too depressed. Unemployment has been bad, but it is now the lowest for seven years. Surely that is an encouraging sign.
I am sure that the Government can prove that there are tremendous advantages to be gained in the Highlands and in areas such as Wales where there is fresh air and where there are unlimited water supplies and where, as at Invergordon, there are fine harbour facilities. The harbour at Invergordon was run down after the Royal Navy ceased to use it, but it is now used for the oiling of N.A.T.O. ships. It is wrong that valuable assets such as this should not be used. More information must be given through the development officers and Board of Trade and the Development Department, so that it can be generally understood that the Highlands have a much greater part to play in the national economy.

7.42 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I am very pleased to follow the hon.


Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir John MacLeod) whose speech was very moderate and almost progressive. It was certainly more progressive than that of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) who, unfortunately, has now left. I am sorry that he is no longer with us, because I propose at least to put on record some of my objections to his remarks.
Before doing so, I should like to say that in his modest and moderate speech the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty brought us back to reality. He said that my hon. Friends were unfair in not admitting that the Government's measures had had an effect on Scotland. I do not think that any of my hon. Friends has gone so far as to say that they have had no effect. The argument has been that they have been inadequate to the problem.
It is not good enough to record that we have done so many good things in previous years and then to shut our eyes to the many remaining difficulties. As a doctor, I would quickly run out of patients if all I did was to keep them alive but never fully recovered from illness. It is important to give people hope that they will get out of their difficulties. The Government's plans and White Papers have not fully diagnosed Scotland's illnesses and have given little hope that things will get better. That is our objection. It is wrong to see only half the picture and to relate only half the story.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire suggested we had played no part in the recent improvements to Scotland's economy. When he says that of the efforts which we have made over the last dozen years he does a grave disservice not only to us but to truth. Is it not within the memory of hon. Members that two Conservative Members and two Labour Members jointly went to see the Prime Minister to ask him to intervene in the negotiations about the graving dock? Was there any party capital to be derived from that? There did not seem to be any at the time. Both pairs of hon. Members joined together as one united team.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire referred to Ravenscraig. Does he not recall that one of the few times in Scottish Parliamentary history when

both the Unionist and Labour groups got together was when they made earnest efforts to press the Government to make sure that Scotland got a steel strip mill? Is it not also true that the only objector to that proposition was on the benches opposite, an hon. Member who later became a junior Minister?
Is it not clear that we have played our part? Hon. Members will remember the late Member for West Lothian, a well-loved Member on this side and the other side of the Committee, who did an enormous amount of work to convince the Board of Trade that a large industry, such as the British Motor Corporation, should go to West Lothian. Is it right for the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire to say that the Committee is divided between hon. Members on this side who run down Scotland and hon. Members opposite who praise it? His speech was enormously unfair.
If the Government have acted to bring large sections of industry to Scotland, it has been because of pressure from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and certainly on this side. We would have been a bad Opposition if we had not pointed out to the Government the error of their ways, their mistakes and the inadequacies of their programmes. That is what an Opposition is for and it is the duty of hon. Members supporting the Government to agree with the Opposition whenever the case allows that it is possible.
I called the speech of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty progressive. I said that because, having studied the problems of the Highlands as he has, having been a Member for nearly 20 years, he has concluded that there is great merit in the proposal to set up a Highland development authority. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have advocated that for many years. It was in our programme in 1958—"Let Scotland Prosper"—which was produced for the election of 1959. The hon. Member was then armed with a different manifesto. Perhaps he will urge his own party to include this proposal in its own manifesto for the next election. We have put forward suggestion after suggestion about what should be done.
Between 1955 and 1959, the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was the Member for Lancaster. We never


saw him at Scottish debates in those days, even though he was a Scotsman. I do not rebuke him strongly for that, but perhaps we should rebuke him for not remembering what happened in those years. In all those years until 1959, hon. Members opposite rigorously argued against the concept of advance factories. It was only in the debate of 1959 that the Minister reluctantly announced that there were to be three advance factories—one for Wales, one on Merseyside for England, and one for Scotland. Dolefully he said that the Government could not guarantee to get tenants for them.
Under pressure from us over all these years, the right hon. Gentleman today announced that there are 23 advance factories promised, including 12 building and nine allocated to tenants. That is proof of the argument for advance factories. But we advocated advance factory building not only in "Signposts for Scotland" in 1963 and now but in "Let Scotland Prosper" in 1959. The Government have not had a single advance factory left on their hands so far. Why do they not speed up this development? When he deals with West Renfrewshire, the Secretary of State will undoubtedly take credit for the building of an advance factory in that area. But it will provide only 20 jobs in a district where there are over 2,000 unemployed. We are grateful for small mercies, but it is not much.
That factory already has an intending tenant before its building is completed. Next to it there are about 18 acres which the Government promised to buy in 1961. It took them nearly two years to do so after they had made their promise with a great flourish of trumpets. It has taken the Government until now to lay out the ground for factory building. Areas like this all over Scotland could be used for the building of advance factories to expand our industrial capacity.
No doubt the Minister will announce tonight that a number of acres of derelict land have been cleared under Sections 4 and 5 of the Local Employment Act. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire were here, I would point out that we have constantly nagged Ministers for not having done enough in this matter. If hon. Members opposite do not like that, let me read the Minister's report, published last month, which says:

There is estimated to be about 15,000 acres of derelict land in Central Scotland and very little impression has been made on this by the clearance operations so far undertaken.
No matter what the Minister says about the clearance of this land, let no one be deceived into thinking that more than a small impression has been made on this immense problem.
In my constituency, which we are trying to make attractive to incoming industrialists, we have derelict land which we are anxious to have cleared. The Minister is giving us little effective help in getting our application accepted by the Board of Trade and by the Scottish Office. I have raised this matter before, and been told that there are a number of difficulties, including legal difficulties over the definition in Scottish law of the word "derelict ". If there is this legal difficulty, I am sure that the Government could resolve it by bringing in a short Bill to deal with it. After all, they are very experienced in bringing in Bills at the last minute. It could probably be done by bringing in a Private Member's Bill next week. The Malta Independence Bill is an example of how quickly the Government can act when they want to. If the difficulty to which I have referred is the main obstacle to helping us, the Government could bring in a Bill to deal with it, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would facilitate its passage to enable us to speed up the clearance of derelict land.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) talked about I.D.C.s. I raised this matter with the late hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Brooman-White) when he was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. He went into the matter pretty thoroughly, but in the end he produced an answer which was unsatisfactory to us both. When an I.D.C. is issued, there ought to be a follow-up by the Ministry of Labour. When my hon. Friend talked about quarterly returns, the Minister gave a most unsatisfactory reply. He said that he could not issue quarterly returns on the outcome of I.D.Cs. because it was administratively difficult, rum-te-tum, and so on.
If a certificate is issued on a certain date saying that a certain firm is being given a Government grant of a certain


amount, or Government assistance, or even permission to build, and it will as a consequence provide, say, 800 jobs, it seems reasonable that a definite time should be set for the firm to lodge a consequential certificate with the Ministry of Labour or Board of Trade saying that it has completed its work, and that as a result fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, it is above or below the anticipated figure by a certain number.
If that were done we could measure pipeline promises against reality. We have all been deceived by talk about pipelines, not so much because the Government want to deceive us—I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would love to see the jobs which they have promised come into being—but because, by hoping this and believing that and never checking on what has in fact happened, the problem has remained unsolved. I put it to the Minister that it is still fair criticism that unless they are able to show not only the House but the people outside that they are keeping their promises, not for party reasons but for the purpose of trying to solve this problem, those people will never be satisfied that politicians' promises mean something. If the British people are wise enough to elect us to power in October, I hope that we will observe the recommendations of the Select Committee on this matter.
I deal next with shipbuilding and docks. The Minister gave me the sad impression this afternoon—and I must say that he re-echoed the opinion of the Minister of Transport—that decaying, dying and contracting industries are pretty well written off. As the representative of a community which is dependent on one of these industries, I resent this, because shipbuilding is not a dying industry. It is still an industry of the future. In fact, if we had a nuclear vessel afloat we might be in the forefront in the building of ships of the future, as we were when we were responsible for the early development of steam. We snatched the initiative from other nations and became a great shipbuilding Power because we saw the potential of steam. The same could be true of nuclear vessels. We are still waiting for the Government to announce whether they propose to build a nuclear ship. My information

is that they do not intend to do so. We shall know next Thursday.
I ask the Committee to remember that the Government have been discussing the building of a nuclear ship since 1958. There have been innumerable reports from committees which I shall not name. We have gone on and on through the Admiralty, through the Minister of Transport, through the Atomic Energy Authority, and through the Lord President of the Council and Secretary of State for Education and Science. We have got nowhere. If we had invested in marine shipbuilding, with nuclear propulsion as its main basis, we would be far ahead of other nations and we would be getting the orders that we need because of the many shipyards which have been closed in recent years.
The right hon. Gentleman draws consolation from the fact that contraction in shipbuilding has stopped, but he is deceiving himself. The Shipbuilding Credit Bill is the sole reason why we have been able to get so many orders. The last of these orders will be completed by next May. In fact, the industry had taken up the money before the House passed the Bill authorising the spending of £75 million for this purpose. The Minister said that after this money had been spent the industry would contract "to its right size and shape". That does not mean to the size and shape recommended by N.E.D.C., which has said that a live and viable industry is an essential component in the industrial fabric of this country. This is where the Government have made a grave error in their industrial calculations. I think that it was Disraeli who said that the Conservatives represented the party of reform; they favour the last reform, but not the next one. The same is true of the Conservatives today. Only recently they have been converted to planning, but they have not accepted it wholeheartedly. They favour regional planning, but not national planning.
Much the same comment applies to their attitude to public investment. They have only half accepted the new concept of public investment, which we must have if we are to prosper. Apparently there are no great private captains of industry left today. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport,


good Conservative that he is, wise vice-admiral that he is, lamented the fact that there was no great captain of industry who would come forward to build the ships of the future. The Government have to provide the money, and this is the tragedy of private enterprise today. It must turn to the Government for money. We are more modern than the party opposite, because we understand and accept that there has to be investment of this kind. We say that if there is investment of this kind it should be with complete public participation with no doctrinaire fear of Government association with these investment programmes. Let us do justice to private enterprise, but let us at the same time do justice to the public purse.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made one of the best speeches that I have ever heard him deliver in this House. The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire referred to the right hon. Gentleman as a shadow Scottish Secretary of State. Who knows?—there have been many more conversions since Saul went on the road to Damascus. In his excellent speech the right hon. Gentleman pointed out the problem of docking in the Port of Leith. It is true. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy) has argued this case solidly at Question Time, in the Standing Committee on the Harbours Bill and elsewhere. Even now he has not succeeded in getting approval of the necessary investment of £4 million in the Leith Docks to do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested was long overdue. Of course, it is in the White Paper as a possibility, a consideration, a "perhaps", but it has not been done. The same consideration applies to the Clyde.
Some friends of mine from Greenock are coming here next week to meet Lord Rochdale, and we hope to persuade him that there should be large-scale public investment in the river. Under the Harbours Bill £100 million was set aside to achieve this, but it is not enough for the entire United Kingdom. We pointed this out in Committee on the Harbours Bill. If all the rivers in Britain received their essential amount of investment we should need far more than £100 million.
If there is to be a scramble for this money it is important that the Scottish Ministers should be fully alive to see that a proper share is given in respect not only of the Clyde but of the Forth. If they can do that they will have earned our gratitude in history. They will have done a little to help Scotland, but we, of course, will still have to do the larger part of the work in order to finish the job.

8.2 p.m.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: I have followed the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in debate on previous occasions. Today, I am inclined to be sympathetic to him. I know something of his problem. It was my privilege and duty to serve in Greenock for a year or so during the war. But I hope that the Committee will excuse me if I do not follow his speech in detail. I want to refer to some of the problems in my three counties—and they are not all the same problems.
I agree with the hon. Member in what he said in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir J. MacLeod) for being in harmony with hon. Members opposite. All of us who think deeply about employment, unemployment, depopulation and all those matters which affect the people of Scotland, come to this Committee basically with the idea of thinking and speaking in a way which will do good and help to resolve the problems of unemployment and depopulation. Although at this time we are tempted to introduce party matters into our discussions it is not my intention to do so today. I shall not speak at great length, because I know that hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
I want to refer to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Greenock and the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) about an overall plan. I think that all hon. Members are happy to have seen the plan that has evolved from the Central Scotland development. I am happy that a study is going on in the South-East—in my three counties and the adjacent counties—to see what needs to be done to check depopulation and to increase the productivity of the mills and the conditions in which the people live in


my constituency and the three adjacent counties.
I do not wish to reiterate anything that I said some months ago in an Adjournment debate. I want to point out that as late as yesterday I put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asking
what progress is being made by his Department in investigating the conditions relating to the depopulation in the Border counties and the South-East of Scotland generally; and if he will make an interim statement.
I was delighted to have his Answer, which, I hope, is an aurgury for the future. He said:
Since my hon. and gallant Friend was given an account of this study in the Adjournment debate on 23rd March, a great deal of detailed work has been carried out on the potential of the different parts of the Borders for physical development, and on studies of migration trends and population structure.
This is most helpful. I am glad to know that these investigations have gone forward so quickly.
My right hon. Friend also said:
We have also had most helpful discussions with the tweed industry which have led us to a much better understanding of their labour requirements; similar discussions with the knitwear industry are in progress. On the rather different problems of the eastern part of the area "—
referring in the main to Berwickshire and East Lothian, and not my constituency—
which arise on both sides of the Border, liaison has been established with the North East Development Group.
The Committee will agree that this is a good and healthy thing. The North East Development Group has problems which are common to ours over the Border and it is good that a relationship should be established between these two development groups:
special attention is being given to the forward requirements of the agricultural industry and the difficulties of the small country towns.
I hope that before long this will conduce to a situation where we will have what has been needed in the Borders for at least 25 years, namely, the establishment of new, male-employing light industries. There has been a steady and almost continuous depopulation of approximately half of 1 per cent. a year. In some parts it has been a little higher, and it has varied between one county and another from year to year.
In the Border burghs—and I have eight, of which six are all tweed, hosiery and knitwear towns—there is no unemployment. In fact, there are not enough people to fill the jobs. This is particularly true of female labour. I have had to say it before, but it bears repetition, being based on the truth: all the towns in my three counties are desperately in need of further female help to operate the looms in the mills. It is a well-known fact that the tweed producing, hosiery and knitwear industries of the Borders of Scotland, ever since the war, have been one of the main per capita earners of dollars for Britain.
It is a sorry thing to go into the mills and to see how desperate is the need in some of them. Last September, I visited 60 or more mills in my three counties. There was one medium-sized mill which, the week before, had turned down an order from a London firm for 2,000 fully-fashioned cashmere knitwear garments, and the day before that had turned down an order for 1,000. Three months before it had turned down orders from Oslo alone for 10,000 magnificent garments. The only reason for these orders being turned down was that there was not sufficient girls and young women to man the looms. If we had 500 women available in the town of Hawick alone, tomorrow morning they would all be absorbed into the mills by lunchtime.
That is the situation in the Borders. That is why I was glad to have the assurance that this study is being carried out with a sense of urgency. I do not see why the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) should laugh.

Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. Member knows better than anyone else that these problems of the Borders have been known for 10 or 12 years. I ventured to smile when the hon. and gallant Member spoke of urgency. Everyone knows that this survey should have been carried out 10 years ago.

Commander Donaldson: I do not dissent from that. I have been urging urgency—if I may put it that way. I do not take it well when the hon. Member laughs about it. I have not sat back and done nothing. I have been trying to get something like this done for years. The hon. Member is in agreement with me on this. I am merely expressing my delight that this is happening now, and I


hope that, if anything, I can urge it to happen even more quickly.
I would like to see the most stricken of all my towns, and the one that is really in difficulties—Jedburgh—receiving further assistance. Those who know the Borders know that we have one up-to-date local factory in Jedburgh—the Starrett Company Limited—which employs about 250 people. This factory is prepared to expand to a point where it will employ 1,100 people, which would put an immediate strain on Jedburgh's housing situation. The town council would be willing to build the houses, and it has the land on which to do it.
It is not for my right hon. Friend to answer this point, but what is tying up this further expansion is difficulty with the Treasury in relation to a certain amount of taxation on machines which have to come into this country and which would be in competition with those manufactured by one or two companies south of the Border. I hope that this problem will be happily resolved at a meeting to take place in the not-distant future between one of the Treasury Ministers and the managing director of that company, who, with his secretary, will come to the meeting.
All this will be aided by this study and what I hope will be a quick application of what is found in the research being made. If this is done as quickly and effectively as in the central belt of Scotland, we shall see the plan for Scotland appearing from what seem to be the pieces of a crossword puzzle and that what has been done is worth while and helpful. I do not want to wait any further for an improvement in the situation in the Borders and I should like some action taken to stop the depopulation.
This has some effect on the employment and housing situation in Glasgow, for every one of the Border burghs has an overspill agreement with Glasgow. Hawick is pressing hard to attract families from Glasgow because the women are needed in the mills. There is a difficulty in attracting families from Glasgow overspill when there are few jobs for the men and yet there are any number of jobs for the women.
I am receiving a great deal of help in this matter from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr.

Lilley), who, in his "surgery", asks people whether they want to go to live in the Borders. We have much correspondence. I put it to the Town Clerk of Hawick, who deals with the local exchange, and they then work back to Glasgow. A number of families have already come to Hawick and are happy to be there. The firms are delighted to have the women working in the mills. So far, we have also provided 20 to 30 jobs for men from Glasgow.
This is just a beginning. We need more co-operation from Glasgow business elements, as I am the first to admit. Galashiels has had a few of these people and Peebles has had a few. This is the beginning, but we need a number of not-too-large, light industries employing male labour. It is not enough that people should be exported from Glasgow to help Glasgow with its housing problem. If they are to go to the Borders there must be an export not just of people, but also of some light industries to go with them. The housing problems in the Borders can be solved. All the burghs are prepared to deal with them. Selkirk and Galashiels are building houses, and all the other burghs are prepared to build them. We need a little more co-operation with some of the Glasgow business elements.
A number of factories are being pulled down in the redevelopment of Glasgow. Gorbals is one of two areas in particular where this is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove and I have been trying to induce those people whose factories in Glasgow are to be demolished not to move to an area within the greater perimeter of Glasgow, but to move straight away to the Borders. Under the overspill arrangements between Hawick, Jedburgh, Selkirk, or any of the other Border burghs, the factories, when established there, will attract the same financial benefits as if they went to a development area—which, of course, in the Borders we are not.
All these things come within the compass of the study which I am glad to say my right hon. Friend's Department is urgently carrying out. I trust that this will be of benefit not only to the people and burghs in the Borders in order to


stop the depopulation, but also in the decanting of people from Glasgow, many of whom would like to get into the countryside if they could find a proper environment in which to live and jobs for the men of the families. This would be good both for east and for west. This is the sort of co-operation in which I believe, just as I believe in co-operation across this Committee when we are dealing with human affairs—the problems of people who need jobs and of places where the jobs are available, but the people are not there to fill them.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. William Baxter: Listening to the whole of this debate I have been forcibly struck by the fact that no Member from the Government benches has painted as rosy a picture of the situation which prevails in Scotland as that painted by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade. It seems that the further one is from Scotland the more one sees the many things which are supposed to have been carried out in Scotland. All hon. Members who have spoken since the Minister have their residences in Scotland and each has been to a great degree pessimistic in his outlook. No hon. Member can be at all satisfied with the progress which has been made in Scotland although we all recognise that a certain amount of progress has been made.
I have listened not only to this debate but to yesterday's debate. One statement which struck me forcibly yesterday was that the standard of living of the people of Germany exceeds the standard of living of the people of this country. If that is taken to mean an average of the working people of this country, it must be borne in mind that the average in England is very much higher than the average in Scotland. This means that the standard of living of the Scottish working people is very far below that of the German people. This cannot be a happy state of affairs, and it must give rise to some hardship and give some room for concern. Notwithstanding the progress which has been made, it has not been sufficient to keep the standard of living of the people of Scotland even on a par with that of the people of England and it has fallen far short of the standard of living in Germany.
I had hoped to say a few words about the health of our people because the standard of living and the type of work in which they are employed, and whether they are unemployed or not, has a bearing on their health. This afternoon we are discussing large Votes for Health, and yet I remind the Committee of the simple fact that the hospitals and health services of Scotland have not progressed to the same extent over the last 10 or 12 years as have he hospitals and health services of England. The infant mortality rate in Scotland is still very much higher than that in England.
I will not weary the Committee by going into detail, nor have I time to do so, but it has been suggested by some hon. Members opposite that agriculture is a very prosperous industry. It is certainly more prosperous than it was 12 or 18 months ago, but we must recognise that the recent Price Review had its eye on the forthcoming General Election, and yet it has not done for the Scottish farmer that which we all want to see done—give him a sense of security. There is great doubt in the minds of the Scottish farming community about future prospects. When they look at the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964, they wonder what type of Government we have, when it is stipulated in the Act that we shall be prepared from time to time to import cereals from other parts of the world but that their prices must reach the price levels prevailing in this country. Last year we were buying wheat and barley at between 14s. and 23s. a cwt. The prevailing price in this country is about 28s. a cwt. By this Act" we tell foreigners, "Provided that you increase the price of barley or wheat to the price prevailing in this country, we will be prepared to purchase it". That has not given any degree of satisfaction or confidence to agricultural workers or agriculturists in Scotland.
Comparisons are often made with what was done by the Labour Government. There can be no doubt that the agricultural policy followed by the Labour Government brought about security for the farming community which we all so much desired. It is only since the present Government came to power that that security and the feeling that we were going some place in an agricultural sense has been wiped out, with the exception of the last Price Review which was an election stunt.
I do not want to go into the details of the various Agriculture Acts, but it is true that most of the farming community are now beginning to wonder what will be the future policy of the Conservatives. The question is: will they produce any new scheme for the farming community? There is no doubt that it is absolutely essential that some degree of security be established in agriculture. We have not as yet had produced for our consideration a proper marketing scheme for beef cattle and sheep. Even the last Act did not give us any help in that respect. It is true that any Government who may come to power must try to safeguard our producers. They must also safeguard the consumers. Up to the moment, this has not been done. Very soon some Government will have to review the whole question of agricultural subsidies and put them on a sound business footing. What is needed is a new approach to agriculture in Scotland as compared to that south of the Border.
The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) referred to the tourist industry. This is indeed a most important industry for Scotland. Only a few months ago the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced a Bill in the Scottish Grand Committee with the sole purpose of imposing a levy upon Scottish hoteliers as against English hoteliers. It is true that, owing to public pressure, the Secretary of State was forced to withdraw the Bill. However, it showed that the Government do not know the road they seek to travel. It makes one wonder how stupid they can become. It was said that it was only a small tax which was being put upon Scottish hoteliers, but no large tax has been imposed by any Chancellor of the Exchequer which did not start on the basis of being a small tax. The small tax which the Secretary of State for Scotland suggested for the Scottish tourist industry would soon have become a very large tax.
I should like to have spoken about education and the fact that the new university is to be sited in Stirling. I heartily concur with that decision. I believe that Stirling is the proper place for the university. I am sorry to hear that even the Secretary of State was not too keen on it coming to Stirling. I give the decision a very hearty welcome.
We have heard a great deal in the debate about industry. It is my opinion, for what it is worth, that Scotland is becoming too dependent upon large outside industrial undertakings. So many of the new factories are being taken up by organisations from outside. If there should be a trade recession in future, as there could well be, undoubtedly the full effects of that recession will be felt in Scotland before they are felt anywhere else. This is a very important aspect of our deliberations.
I am greatly disturbed about the Board of Trade's attitude when small local industrialists seek its assistance to expand or build new small factories. The approach of the Board of Trade to local industrialists in Scotland is far from helpful. I am of the opinion that the Board of Trade would much rather encourage foreign capital to come to Scotland than help local people establish industries there. I have had some experience of this. I know how difficult it is to get any progress when approaching the Board of Trade on this subject.
We have heard about the many research and development bodies connected with the nationalised industries which are situated in London. So it is with the Board of Trade. If it is desired to establish a factory or extend a factory in Scotland, it is necessary to come to the Board of Trade in London. This is most unsatisfactory.
Yesterday I spoke to the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade privately about the position prevailing in my own constituency in Kilsyth and Lennox-town and across the Border in Dunbartonshire in Croy and Twechar. All the pits in that area have gone out of existence, yet there is no sign of any industry being allocated to the areas. I should like the Secretary of State for Scotland to give me some assistance in this and press the Board of Trade to establish an advance factory in the Kilsyth area so as to take up the slack caused by the closure of all the pits.
I also discussed with the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade the problems of Bannockburn, Cowie, Fallin and Plean. This is a whole group of small communities. These villages have been rebuilt by the county council, with the encouragement of the National Coal Board, which told the county council


clearly that it had expected the coal supplies in the areas to go on for an indefinite period. These villages, at great cost to the county council, have been completely rebuilt. As the local authority has gone to all that trouble and expense, one reasonable and sensible thing to do would be to try to establish a small industrial estate in the area so as to keep the villagers in those places I have mentioned happy and reasonably contented.
This follows what the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Sir John MacLeod) said about the Report of the Cairncross Committee, before which I had the privilege to give evidence. The evidence I gave on behalf of the County Councils Association was that the Local Employment Act should be extended to the whole of Scotland. It is wrong to base the whole expansion of Scotland upon certain areas of expansion. We are doing more than a disservice to our country if we do not recognise that there is a great wealth of good labour, which gives of its best if small factories are built within a small community. I have had ample experience of this. I implore the Secretary of State for Scotland to use his good offices to try to do as I have suggested, to get small industries established in small towns and villages in Scotland, many of which I represent. This would instil a better feeling into employees—a pride of place, a pride in their industry, which is a very important thing to have.
Time does not permit me to develop many of the points I wanted to adduce. I would have liked to refer in detail to the building industry, in which I have a personal interest. I believe that that industry has years of expansion before it, but it must have a different method of contracting. It cannot continue with the present degree of uncertainty, and when the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire spoke about purchasing goods from America, he was not being anti-American, for it is not always a question of wanting to buy American. Only a month ago I bought an American machine valued at more than £7,000, simply because it was the machine to do the job. We are not anti-American but pro-British, particularly pro-Scotland.
It is obvious that no building contractor can look to the future with any degree of certainty until we have a

different system of contracting, along with continuity of employment for those in the building industry. This applies equally to civil engineering. The present method of contracting and the utilisation of the various Scottish firms can be organised in a more satisfactory way only if the present contractual system is based on a new system of contracting.
My notes contain many other items of importance, but I regret that time does not enable me to refer to them. However, I must say that unless we have in Scotland a different fiscal system for the whole of the country, along with a different local system of taxation for different industries—and not that which the legislation passed in this House compels us to have—the problems of Scotland will never be solved. It is indefensible, for example, that Scottish industrialists should have to pay more for coal than their opposite numbers south of the Border. This and other things prove that we begin with a serious disadvantage.
I say with all the sincerity at my command that the little flurry of excitement and progress we are now seeing does not have its roots deep in the soil of permanency. We will bring a permanent solution to the problems of Scotland only if we recognise that the fiscal system of the country should be based on a different system from that operating in England generally. So must the political control of the affairs of Scotland be changed.
I regret the necessity to repeat that time prevents me from developing my argument. I do not know the exact method by which speakers are selected in the House of Commons, but I am more than disturbed by the fact that since the beginning of this Session this is the first time I have had the privilege to be called to take part in our deliberations, and this only a short while before the winding up speeches are due to be made. I consider that something should be done to alter not the salaries of hon. Members, but the procedure of Parliament.
If this is not done, if the whole set-up of Parliament is not altered to give Scotland a better share of the time available so that hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies can exercise their responsibilities, both financially and


politically, the whole democratic system of this country will go to rack and ruin.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: We have had a very good debate today. It has, in some respects, been similar to former debates. The opening speech from this side of the Committee was properly used to examine the record of the Government, remembering that it is a parliamentary tradition that on Supply days, when we are voting money, the Opposition take the opportunity to examine the Government's record.
This inevitably means that the Opposition will be somewhat destructive in their approach. It is the job of the Opposition to be destructive of policies being administered by the Government, when the Opposition disagree with those policies. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade will soon have the privilege of making a similarly destructive speech from this side of the Committee.
We then had the Secretary of State bemoaning the fact that the Opposition spokesman, when initiating the debate, had not been more constructive. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to provide the Committee with a few carefully selected figures to show that everything in the garden was lovely and that there was nothing to worry about. This has been going on every year for the last 13 years. Ministers have spoken from the Dispatch Box in every one of these debates during that time saying exactly the same thing; that the Opposition are too much aware of the dark clouds overhead and are not aware of the silver lining. Time and again we have been told that everything will be all right tomorrow. Always right hon. Gentlemen opposite admit that things are difficult now, but say that we must wait a little while until their plans unwind. Well, the plans have unwound, and things are very far from being all right.
One of the notable changes over the years is that we are all planners now. Today, we have listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade telling us in very considerable detail how many people will be living in the South-East in 1984, where they will come from, what will be the

natural increase of the population already in the area, the number of additional immigrants who will live in the area, the number of people living elsewhere in the country who will retire to the South-East, and the number who will be drawn from the North and from Scotland.
We had the whole thing all carefully worked out—or was it? Was it really worked out? If it was worked out and carefully calculated, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to tell us what will be the loss of population in Scotland as a result of migration over the next 20 years. He will not, of course, be able to do anything of the kind.
The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade also told us that the Government could not direct the amount of industrial activity in any part of the country unless there was direction of industry—so he said. So the Government could only create the conditions and provide the necessary inducements in the hope that industry would go where the Government wanted it to go. But if industry does not go—what then? Nothing.
We have heard again today, as is understandable, the story of the stripmill—but not so much the story of the stripmill as the claim that its establishment was due to the policy, the foresight, the imagination and the administration of the present Government. We have also heard of the motor car industry, of the Rootes and B.M.C. products that came later, of the pulp mill and the Post Office Savings Bank—the lot.
On this occasion my mind goes back to a similar debate seven years ago. It was my privilege in 1957 to initiate that debate from this side of the Committee. I then had the temerity to make the case for a steel stripmill, saying that we could not get our share of the motor car industry, or of the durable consumer goods industry generally unless we first got a stripmill. Who opposed me? The authentic voice of Toryism in Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok- (Sir J. George)—the Chairman of the Tory Party in Scotland. He said that I was talking nonsense, and on that occasion declared from the benches opposite that we could not have a stripmill in Scotland.
Incidentally, on the following day I was accused in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald, by a leading industrialist in a letter to those newspapers, of having talked a lot of nonsense about the possibility of the stripmill. Who was the industrialist? He was the chairman of Colvilles. He said that it was an impracticability, and that anyone who talked about developing a stripmill in Scotland was talking through his hat and without knowledge of the steel industry.
In due course, Colvilles was obliged, or encouraged, or induced, or cajoled, or bribed to build a stripmill. If Colvilles had not agreed to build the stripmill, would it never have been built? Is it not possible that even a Tory Cabinet appreciated that a stripmill was essential to Scotland's social and economic future, and said to Colvilles, "If you do not do it, we will have to ask Richard Thomas and Baldwins to develop in Scotland "? Is it not possible that the chairman of Colvilles was faced with a choice of building the stripmill himself with £50 million of public money or permitting an extension of steel industry nationalisation in Scotland?
In any case, let me make the position absolutely clear. When a Labour Government decides that a project of this sort—and it does not have to be just steel nationalisation—is essential to the well-being of any part of Scotland, let alone the whole of Scotland, and private industry is not willing to go along and do the job, we will not shrink from employing public enterprise to do that which the needs of the community require to be done.
We had a debate on forestry in the Scottish Grand Committee today, in which the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he could recall former speeches on forestry in debates in the House and in Committee. There was only one previously in the Scottish Grand Committee and that was in 1959. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on that occasion it was the Opposition who were arguing for the construction of a pulp mill in the North of Scotland. He will remember very well that we were not concerned, as we made it clear, whether the pulp mill was built by private or public enterprise. We said that the surplus timber was there and

that the best possible expert advice we had was to go ahead with the building of a pulp mill in the near future, and not only one but perhaps two.
Again, there were considerable vested interests in the country against the construction of a pulp mill, but in due course we had the Act on the Statute Book and the Wiggins Teape pulp and paper integrated mill was got under way with £10 million of taxpapers' money behind it. If Wiggins Teape had not been willing to accept the £10 million, plus about another £3 million, to build the project would Scotland just have had to do without the mill? Are the Tories telling us that if private enterprise cannot be induced to do a job we must do without the job? This was not what was said about the Highlands shipping service. Private enterprise would not, or could not, do the job and therefore the State did it, and very sensibly the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Maclay, as he then was, took the decision.
We appreciate that over the years the Government have had at their disposal the powers of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, until they reproduced the provisions of that Act, a little weakened, in a new Measure which they called the Local Employment Act, 1960. We appreciate that they defined more strictly the powers of that Act in the Local Employment Act, 1963. We appreciate the free depreciation provisions of the Finance Act, 1963. None of us has ever said that the Government did not have the power or had done nothing in the past 13 years. What we have said over and over again is that the Government have never used the powers that they had fully and adequately.
We have charged them with failing to mobilise the material and manpower resources of the nation. That is the charge that we level against the Tory Government. That is the charge on which the electors of Scotland have already found the Tory Party guilty, and that is the charge on which the Tory Party will be found guilty as soon as the electors in Scotland are given the opportunity once again to give their verdict.
So many hon. Members have said during the course of the debate that it is pointless to have regional plans without a


national plan that I hesitate to repeat it. It seems to me to be so obvious that one wonders how any Government could be so foolish as to pretend that one can have study groups studying the conditions in separate regions of the country and that each study group will produce a regional plan which, when they are all put together, will create one national plan. Is this really what we are expected to believe?
The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade this afternoon paid some tribute to the Scottish Council. The Scottish Council had something to say about the folly of producing regional plans without there being any national plan. Incidentally, where are the Tories now?

Miss Herbison: There is one Tory back bencher.

Mr. Ross: And no Prime Minister.

Mr. Fraser: The Scottish Council, over the years, has gradually come round to the acceptance of and the advocacy of the policies which we have been urging from this Box. When one gets support for one's advocacy from a body like the Scottish Council one is grateful.
In the conclusion to its Report which it issued on 24th April it said:
Two things are missing. The plans which have so far been published are concerned with public investment and with land use. They lack any industrial analysis or content, and as a result they lack the essential component which alone will spread the continuing growth of industry sufficiently evenly over the principal industrial areas of Britain. In addition, the general pattern of which the individual plans are part must be made available if conflicts are to be avoided and priorities to be maintained. Without these elements, implementation of the plans will do Scotland and other areas of Britain more harm than good. With them, the plans would hold out the prospect of a far stronger Britain, with the sort of employment opportunities in Scotland and other areas that we want for all sections of the community.
The same sort of case was made by the Scottish branch of the Town and Country Planning Association. In its report to Her Majesty's Government it supported the policy that we on these benches have been advocating. I should have thought it was so obvious that it scarcely needed saying that the carrying into effect of the South-East plan is bound to be detrimental to the attraction of sufficient industry to Scotland to solve the problem of

unemployment and to provide opportunities for our young people.
I took the opportunity of saying this in the debate on 19th March, the day on which the South-East plan was produced. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that it does something to satisfy one's vanity that Buchanan, the Scottish Council, the Scottish branch of the Town and Country Planning Association and every responsible body which has been able to examine the Scottish, the North-East and the South-East plans objectively have come to the same conclusion as that which I voiced in the debate on 19th March.
There were a great many things I wanted to say, and I find that I have not enough time to make the speech which I could make. Indeed, I feel that I have hardly got started. I turn now to the speech of the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, who waxed eloquent about the plans for Central Scotland and the North-East, saying that the Government were seeking to rehabilitate the growth areas. This, he said, was the industrial content of the White Papers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman went after he made his speech. I heard some of my hon. Friends, a few moments ago, asking where all the Tories had gone. I am wondering why the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade has not been here.
The right hon. Gentleman waxed eloquent about what was being done in the clearing of derelict sites. Does the Secretary of State for Scotland recall that, between 1945 and 1951, great encouragment was given by the Labour Government to the clearing of derelict sites and in many cases the work was undertaken by the Board of Trade direct? When it was undertaken by the local authorities, the Labour Government accepted that it was work being done by them on behalf of the community as a whole and, therefore, 100 per cent. grants were given. I wonder whether the Committee fully realises that in May, 1952, six months after the Tories came to power, all grants for the clearing of derelict sites were stopped and no more were given for many years.
The Tory Government withheld grants for which provision was made in the 1945 Act, grants which were given by


the Labour Government between 1945 and 1951, for the improvement of basic services. The Tory Government would not do it for 10 years. Now, they have suddenly discovered that those areas which suffer heavy unemployment, the ones now described as growth areas, very badly want to be rehabilitated, and this, we are told, is the whole object of the White Paper on Central Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Industry and Trade told us about great plans for public investment. I find it very difficult to discuss this part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech without using language which you, Sir Robert, would immediately call upon me to withdraw. This White Paper is a fraud. The right hon. Gentleman told us about public investment in Central Scotland and the North-East and compared it with public investment in Britain as a whole, the idea being that those two areas were getting a great advantage. He referred to roads, schools, housing, and so on. I interrupted to make a point about housing, and the Secretary of State for Scotland knows perfectly well that it was a valid point. His White Paper on Central Scotland has done nothing to stimulate the improvement of the infrastructure or the provision of the basic services in the area.
If we turn to the White Paper on Public Investment, Cmnd. 2177, what do we find? The amount to be spent on roads in Scotland in 1963–64, that is, last year, was £17·5 million. It is to go up in 1964–65 to £18·1 million, an increase of £600,000. In the same period, 1963–64, public investment in England and Wales was £123·3 million. The estimated expenditure this year, 1964–65, is £145·2 million, an increase of £22 million compared with an increase of £600,000 in Scotland; and the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade stood at that Box today and pretended to the Committee and to the country that the Government had taken new powers to stimulate public investment in Scotland and the North-East. What he said was the opposite of the truth.

Mr. Willis: Where is he?

Mr. George Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman makes a speech and does not stay to listen to the reply.

Mr. Fraser: The Secretary of State also mentioned expenditure on education. In 1963–64, the total expenditure on schools in Scotland was £15·9 million. The total investment provided for in the White Paper in 1964–65 is £14·3 million—a drop of £1·6 million. Is this stimulating investment and the development of the basic services? Is this encouraging the development of the infrastructure to make areas more attractive to incoming industry?
The other element was housing. In 1962–63, the expenditure on local authority housing, new towns, and the Scottish Special Housing Association was £54·9 million. In 1963–64 it went up to £70·1 million. This was before the publication of the White Paper on Central Scotland. The estimate for 1964–65 is £701 million—no change at all. The Secretary of State for Scotland will not be able to tell us of a single thing which he and his Development Group, or any other group, have done to stimulate local authorities in Central Scotland into building more houses. Yet this is the only part of the infrastructure in which there has been an increase, and it took place before the publication of the White Paper.

Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State is being slaughtered tonight.

Mr. Fraser: The White Paper was a fraud.
We have heard a lot about the reduction in the unemployment figures. The reduction is always compared with the position in 1963, which was the only year since the war when the average monthly figure was well over 100,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) compared the situation with 1951, which is a fair comparison. To that the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade had nothing to say. Incidentally, according to the latest figures available to us, those for mid-June, Scotland, with 70,617 people out of work, has 22 per cent. of Britain's unemployed. I want the Secretary of State to bear that figure in mind.
To what extent is the improvement in the unemployment situation due to migration? The Secretary of State had something to say—and it was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock this afternoon—about the effect of the net loss of younger people in Scotland. We have heard a lot from industrialists in Scotland about the shortage of skilled


labour. As my hon. Friends have been saying, "Where have all the Tories. gone?", we might well ask," Where have all the young men in Scotland gone? Where have all the skilled men gone?" They have gone to other parts of Britain and of the world in which there are job opportunities.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour gave me a Written Answer to a Question on 15th June, just over a month ago, when he told me that between mid-1951 and mid-1963 the estimated number of men and boys in employment in Scotland decreased by 33,000 and increased in Britain by 929,000. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether he knows of another industrial country with such a miserable record? Does the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade know of another country with such a miserable record? [Interruption.] Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade say "Nonsense"? It was his hon. Friend sitting next to him, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, who gave me the figures. Are the figures nonsense? I took it that the hon. Gentleman gave me correct figures and that the number of men and boys in employment in Scotland is fewer than the number 13 years ago, when the Tories took over.

Mr. Willis: What a record!

Mr. Fraser: I repeat the question: is there another industrial country with such a miserable record?
I have said that Scotland had 22 per cent. of Britain's unemployed and I asked the Secretary of State to bear that figure in mind. I did that because, according to the latest issue of the Digest of Statistics, published by the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade, we have under construction in Britain 71,885,000 sq. ft. of industrial building, of which 10,638,000 sq. ft. is in London and the South-East and of which the Midland region has 7,983,000 sq. ft. and Scotland 5,592,000 sq. ft. Scotland, with 22 per cent. of Britain's unemployment, has 7·7 per cent. of Britain's factory building.
The Secretary of State has no answer to this. He can talk until he is blue in the face about the size of the grants which are made available to industrialists either in Scotland or who are coming to Scotland. So long as London and the South-East have the lion's share of all the com-

mercial and office employment and, at the same time, has more—I repeat and emphasise, constantly more—than its population's share of the country's industrial building, just so long will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption] I do not want to take up too much time, but I have quoted the figures.

Mr. Ross: Give him a chance to hear.

Mr. Fraser: I must allow time for the Secretary of State to make his speech.
So long as those figures remain, so long as Scotland gets much less even than its population's share—and even that would not be enough—just so long will the right hon. Gentleman be unable to claim with justification that he is administering satisfactorily the industrial development certificate procedure.
I do not have time to quote letters which I had from the Minister of State, Board of Trade, following an earlier debate in which I showed that at Slough there was much more speculative factory building in advance of knowing who the tenants would be, that even now Slough can talk about 30 acres of land which are set aside for factory building and that the Minister of State, Board of Trade, says that, inasmuch as this land was scheduled for industry in the first place, there cannot be any complaint about it. And so this goes on and on. As soon, however, as the electors get a chance, the Tory Government will not be allowed to go on. [Interruption.] Did somebody say that I was wrong again? I was right the last time. I said that Scotland would vote Labour, and it did, and I have no doubt that Scotland will vote Labour again.
I ask the Secretary of State to answer the question put by my hon. Friend about Dounreay. Successful research and development has been carried out on a fast-breeder reactor and a prototype fast-breeder station is now to be built. There are great fears in the knowledge that it may not go to Dounreay. I ask the Secretary of State to say that it must go to Dounreay, because, if it does not, the social and economic consequences in the North will be disastrous.
I should like to have said more about Labour's alternative policy. We believe in a national plan to which regional plans should be related. We will give every


encouragement to private enterprise, including tax inducements and subsidies, as at present. After all, we started all this business. Growth industries, however, must go to the job-hungry areas and Labour will not shrink from establishing public enterprise industry where necessary. The object will be to mobilise the manpower and material resources of the whole nation. It is because the Government have manifestly failed to do this that we will have the greatest possible pleasure in voting against them tonight.

9.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Noble): I will try to cover a fairly wide range in the time which is available to me. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) was accurate when he said that the form of these debates—and he remembers more of them than I do—is that the Opposition are mainly destructive in their criticism and that the Government produce their record and say that everything in the garden is lovely. But I do not regard that as an accurate description of the speech today of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry and Trade It is, none the less, true that if it is the duty of the Opposition to be destructive—and I do not entirely agree with that—it is necessary for the Government to highlight at least what has been achieved in the year before.
I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by explaining the various reasons that lay behind the fact that the White Paper on Industry and Employment, to which various references have been made, is not available. As hon. Members on both sides will remember, the Opposition last year chose to debate exactly this subject before the White Paper was available. I informed the House on 15th May that it would not be available until later this year, because we wanted to make it as comprehensive a report as we could.

Mr. Ross: rose—

Mr. Noble: I am sorry, I cannot give way.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston): Order.

Mr. George Lawson: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Have

we not been treated to impertinence enough tonight?

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that it is not in order for two hon. Members to be on their feet at the same time, and it is the duty of the Chair to stop it.

Mr. Noble: I was asked to give the reasons why the White Paper is not here. I said that I informed the House on 15th May that it would not be ready until later this year. Not a single hon. Member opposite has made any protest between 15th May and today.

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this debate could not have taken place any later. This is the last day for Estimates. It was not right of him so to delay the White Paper as to deny us the opportunity of having the information before us when we debated this subject.

Mr. Noble: It was not delayed for that reason any more than when the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends chose to debate the subject last year long before the White Paper was ready. These are the facts of the matter. As I was asked to explain it, I have done so.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) told the Committee that in the whole of the document that he waved about there was no information whatever about transport. Perhaps he ignored the 40 pages in that Report on roads, which I regard as part of our transport system. I think I should tell the Committee, that, of the 285 miles of motorway and trunk roads in the central belt referred to in the White Paper, 130 miles are completed or in hand, and 13 schemes of over £100,000, to a total value of £6 million, were started last year.
This year I have authorised already over £8 million and by the end of the year I expect to spend some £12½ million on those roads which are of key industrial importance. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have been patient or impatient, according to their natures, about the starting dates for things like the Harthill by-pass and the Hamilton by-pass. The Harthill by-pass has started and contracts have been let for the Hamilton-Larkhall-Uddington by-pass.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the debate?

Mr. Noble: In a moment I will reply to the debate, but it is customary for the Minister replying to make a few points on subjects which are the responsibility of his Department.
A number of hon. Members asked about the provision of air services. Most hon. Members will have seen the reports of the meeting yesterday between the Scottish Council, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation and myself. It is not unfair to say that Lord Polwarth, Chairman of the Council, regarded it as a most useful and helpful meeting.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked whether it might not be possible to get more small aircraft and perhaps more helicopters for the Islands. As I told the Scottish Council last night, my Highland Transport Board is looking particularly at this point.
I agree with the limited comments of some hon. Members opposite that the White Paper was not an industrial analysis. It was not meant to be. But one very important subject which has also been mentioned today is the supply of water to the central belt of Scotland. The Loch Lomond scheme has already started.

Mr. Ross: It did not start with the White Paper.

Mr. Noble: I did not say that it did. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the Ayrshire County Council has now got almost complete agreement for instituting the Loch Bradan scheme. Both these schemes are of the greatest importance for getting the abundance of water which is needed for modern industry just as much as for housing.
I do not want to take too much time in discussing housing, because there are still many points to answer. One of the most important single factors in housing at the moment is the provision of more suitable houses for the skilled workers and those in management and technical grades who are being attracted to Scotland and who need to be attracted if our industry is to be fostered. We are doing all we can to encourage local authorities, private builders, new town

corporations and others to regard this as an extremely important addition to the housing they are already undertaking.
I do not need to remind the Committee that the volume of housing under construction at the moment is a record since the war. The hon. Member for Hamilton said that in 1951 we cut out a good deal of work that had been done on derelict sites, but it is fair to say that at the same time we stepped up very considerably the housing output.
I want to say something about Irvine and Grangemouth because much was said about new towns. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) baited my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) a little unfairly because a great deal of the new industry had gone a little across the border into his area. Like the hon. Member and others, I think that the Irvine local authority has done extremely well in helping to attract this industry. Whether or not in the near future we decide to make Irvine a new town, it is right and proper that the Scottish Special Housing Association should be building an extra 500 houses there, because that building is extremely important for development in the area.
In Grangemouth, as my right hon. Friend said, there has been a great deal of new development although the cost of much of it is not often directly related to the number of jobs. This is because the immediate cost of these very complicated plants is not matched by the number of jobs they provide, although they give jobs to the people who build them. There are particular difficulties of planning in the Grangemouth area and the Committee will remember the special steps which we have taken to try to deal with them.
The studies which my Departments have undertaken for areas outside the central belt are getting along well. I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire the publication date for these reports. It is slightly ridiculous simply to say that it may be in May or June, or whatever the date may be. We are, in fact, working as quickly as we can.
I hope that others will not make the mistake made by the hon. Member for


Hamilton when considering plans for other areas of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that the plan for Central Scotland was a fraud because it included many things done during the six months or so before the plan was published. I do not believe that he thinks for a second that different projects on which investment should be stimulated and which are identified when the planners study the problem should be held up until the plan is completed.
These other areas are not being forgotten. Last year, we spent about £60 million in public capital investment outside the central belt. We have had the pulp mill, the car ferries made in Aberdeen, the agricultural department of the university in Aberdeen, costing nearly £1 million, while advance factories have gone, or are going, up in a number of different places, such as Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Stranraer. A harbour scheme is well on its way at Eyemouth. This has all been part and parcel of a much wider development, because these areas are essentially rural, and money spent on forestry, agriculture, fishing and tourism is of particular value to these areas at the same time.

Mr. A. Woodburn: The right hon. Gentleman should not omit to claim credit for the nationalised shipping in the north of Scotland.

Mr. Noble: My attention has been drawn to this skilful piece of negotiation by my predecessor.
The report on the Borders is coming along well. We have had useful discussions with the woollen and knitwear industries to try to identify the particular problems likely to be thrown up in the next few years. I acknowledge the help in the Highlands offered most willingly by the university departments in Glasgow and Aberdeen. They are starting work very soon.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock felt that the plan was a sort of confidence trick and the hon. Member for Hamilton put it as low as fraud. I do not accept either of those definitions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that it is not the sort of plan which might have been produced if one had been able to set

15 or 20 economists down for years to work it out. It is essentially a drawing together of many plans which were developing, to concentrate their effect in growth areas. In spite of certain constituency objections, which no doubt affect certain hon. Members, I do not believe that the Committee dislikes the concept of the growth area.
Nor do I feel that it is a justifiable argument to say that this is piecemeal planning. I accept, as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) said,—and it was repeated by many hon. Members—that we do not have a national plan, but for some time before these White Papers came out we had the N.E.D.C. which was doing a great deal of national thinking, and in recent weeks the organisation of N.E.D.C. has visited Scotland with the precise purpose of seeing whether there are regional implications in the N.E.D.C. thinking which ought to be strengthened and developed.
I hope that when we publish the plans for the rest of Scotland we will publish them as a single plan, because it seems to me that all the areas outside the central belt have a good deal of common problems, and that therefore a single report would be best.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock said that our building industry was not sufficiently highly geared to deal with the problems of construction and so on. It is precisely for that reason that we have not only indicated long-term and very high expenditure of public money, and other money, too, in the construction industry, but have given the guarantees to which my right hon. Friend referred. The building industry itself, and the Scottish Trades Union Congress have often said, "If only you will give us long-term plans, we can get ahead and get industry properly geared up".
The hon. Gentleman also said that building materials had been coming largely from the South. Since the new factory which I opened at Dunbar last year came into production we have been producing 60 per cent. of the cement that we need in Scotland as against only one a year ago, and there has been a great increase in brick production as well.
The hon. Gentleman asked, and his hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton reminded me of this, about the future of


Dounreay. I have made inquiries from the Department immediately concerned and it has told me that, although no decision has yet been reached about the prototype reactor even without that there is plenty of work for Dounreay for many years ahead.

Mr. Ross: How many?

Mr. Noble: That will depend on how the work goes.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked about the decline in certain industries. I am happy to tell him that compared with last year chemicals, which was one of the industries about which he asked, went up by 9 per cent., and there are now 10,000 more manufacturing jobs in Scotland than there were last year.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we need a larger number of highly skilled people in Scotland, and this includes the firms which come over from the United States, but I think that it is comforting that many of these firms which come from the South or abroad start on a small scale and work up quite rapidly to being large enough to employ top grade people.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether we could do more in the way of differential taxation. Perhaps we can, but at least we have for the first time produced a differential taxation in the form of free depreciation for Scotland and the North-East.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was not quite fair when he made an entertaining attack on my Development Department, telling me all the things that it did not put into its report, when, as he knows quite well, it is not responsible for any of the things that he mentioned. If it had been responsible for them one would have expected to have found a mention of them in the report, but it is not, so one would not expect to find them there.
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire mention the tourist industry. I wish him the best of luck in his interview with my right hon. Friend about the Clyde steamers tomorrow. In talking about the lack of a national plan, the hon. Member for Fife, West drew attention to the rather more authoritarian rule across the Channel. I admit that for a moment

I had a vision of General de Gaulle trying to deal with the Scottish Grand Committee. I wonder which would last longer.

Mr. Ross: That is what the hon. Gentleman never tries.

Mr. Noble: As the hon. Member knows, I was there only this morning.
Mention has been made of the inadequacies of some of the B.O.T.A.C. schemes, but 50 per cent. of all the loans which came to Scotland under B.O.T.A.C. last year was given on schemes of £30,000 or less. I believe that B.O.T.A.C. is trying to do the best it can to help the smaller firms, and also to help with the particular problems of the Highlands.
I want to give the Committee some figures which have not yet been published about the industrial production in Scotland for the first quarter of this year. They have just been worked out. They show that the output of vehicles and the whole of that group of industries is 38 per cent. up on the corresponding quarter last year. In the construction industries the increase is 22 per cent., although I admit straightaway that last year was a very bad one. Nevertheless, it was 10 per cent. up on the year before that. Metal manufactures are 20 per cent. up on last year, and other good contributions are the 9 per cent. increase in chemicals and the 9½ per cent. increase in printing and publishing. The overall industrial output in Scotland was 9 per cent. higher than in the same quarter of 1963.
I finish on a personal note. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock suggested that I should have a placard round my neck saying, "Have kilt, will travel". It is true that during the last two years I have visited almost every area of Scotland; I have been to America, to which hon. Members opposite objected, and I have been to Moscow, to which they did not object. I have met the Scottish Council at frequent intervals and have met the Executive Committee of the Scottish Trades Union Congress as often as has any other Secretary of State. If the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would do a little travelling—and I am prepared to lend him my kilt if he wants it—he would be far better informed about what is being said in other countries about Scotland and what is being said in different


parts of Scotland about industrial development.
Over the last year or so I have found no frustration in industry. I have found practically no frustration among local authorities, something to which the hon. Member referred. There may be some frustration in trade union circles—and the hon. Member obviously knows more

about this than I do —but in that case it may be that the frustration is due to the fact that the trade union are no quite as up to date in their thinking about scotland as are most other people.

Question put, That a sum not exceeding £1,488,000 be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 166, Noes 226.

Division No. 139.]
AYES
[9.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.


Ainsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Albu, Austen
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.


Alldritt, W. H.
Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Healey, Denis
Pavitt, Laurence


Awbery, Stan (Bristol, Central)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Peart, Frederick


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman


Beaney, Alan
Hilton, A. V.
Popplewell, Ernest


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Holman, Percy
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benson, Sir George
Holt, Arthur
Probert, Arthur


Blackburn, F.
Howie, W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Blyton, William
Hoy, James H.
Randall, Harry


Boardman, H.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rankin, John


Boston, T. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Rhodes, H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Short, Edward


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Skeffington, Arthur


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Collick, Percy
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgfield)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Small, William


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kelley, Richard
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kenyon, Clifford
Snow, Julian


Dalyell, Tarn
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lubbock, Eric
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McBride, N.
Stonehouse, John


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Stones, William


Delargy, Hugh
McInnes, James
Swain, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Symonds, J. B.


Dodds, Norman
Mackenzie, Gregor
Taverne, D.


Doig, Peter
Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Colne Valley)
McLeavy, Frank
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Ede, Rt Hon. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Manuel, Archie
Warbey, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Finch, Harold
Marsh, Richard
Wilkins, W. A.


Foley, Maurice
Mason, Roy
Willey, Frederick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mendelson, J. J.
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Forman, J. C.
Millan, Bruce
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Galpern, Sir Myer
Monslow, Walter
Winterbottom, R. E.


George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Woof, Robert


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, Arthur



Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold
Mr. Lawson and


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Mr. Charles A. Howell.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Owen, Will





NOES


Allason, James
Balniel, Lord
Bidgood, John C.


Anderson, D. C.
Barlow, Sir John
Biffen, John


Arbuthnot, Sir John
Barter, John
Biggs-Davison, John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Batsford, Brian
Bingham, R. M.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Berkeley, Humphry
Black, Sir Cyril




Bourne-Arton, A.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, Sir James


Box, Donald
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Pitt, Dame Edith


Braine, Bernard
Hughes-Young, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, Paul
Iremonger, T. L.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Buck, Antony
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullard, Denys
James, David
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Jennings, J. C.
Pym, Francis


Campbell, Gordon
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Carr, Rt. Hon. Robert (Mitcham)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Chataway, Christopher
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Renton, Rt. Hon. David


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, w.)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Ridsdale, Julian


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Robertson, Sir D.(C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kimball, Marcus
Roots, William


Critchley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Curran, Charles
Lambton, Viscount
Scott-Hopkins, James


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Shepherd, William


Dance, James
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Longden, Gilbert
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eden, Sir John
Loveys, Walter H.
Stodart, J. A.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Elliott, R. W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Storey, Sir Samuel


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
McLaren, Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Farey-Jones F. W.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Farr, John
MacLeod, Sir John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, Sir William (Bradford, N.)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, Sir William


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Maginnis, John E.
Temple, John M.


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Maltland, Sir John
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gardner, Edward
Marten, Neil
Thompson, Sir Kenneth (Walton)


Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maude, Augus (Stratford-on-Avon)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Mawby, Ray
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Turner, Colin


Gower, Raymond
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Stratton
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Green, Alan
Miscampbell, Norman
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Grosvenor, Lord Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Gurden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walder, David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Walker, Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Neave, Airey
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Webster, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Hendon, North)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hastings, Stephen
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wise, A. R.



Page, John (Harrow, West)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodhouse, Hon. Christopher


Hendry, Forbes
Partridge, E.
Worsley, Marcus


Hiley, Joseph
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Peel, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hocking, Philip N.
Percival, Ian
Mr. Finlay and Mr. MacArthur.


Holland, Philip
Pike, Miss Mervyn

Original Question again proposed.

It being after half-past Nine o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Sup-

ply),to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote under consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Revised Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Defence Estimates, including a Supplementary Estimate, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates; and that sanction be given to the application of the sums temporarily authorised in respect of the Navy, Army and Air Services [Expenditure].

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1964–65

Class I

That a sum, not exceeding £63,312,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. House of Lords
205,000


2. House of Commons
1,192,000


3. Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,817,000


4. Privy Council Office
36,000


5. Post Office Ministers
5,000


6. Customs and Excise
15,260,000


7. Inland Revenue
42,350,000


8. Exchequer and Audit Department
417,000


9. Civil Service Commission
549,000


10. Royal Commissions, etc.
481,000



63,312,000

Question put and agreed to.

Class II

That a sum, not exceeding £130,911,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Foreign Service (including a Supplementary sum of £52,000)
19,357,000


2. Foreign Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £1,561,000)
12,189,000


3. British Council
3,588,000


4. Commonwealth Relations Office (Revised Sum) (including a Supplementary sum of
£9,839,000)
30,353,000






£


5. Commonwealth Grants and Loans (Revised sum) (including a Supplementary sum of £13,155,000)
25,117,000


6. Colonial Office (including a Supplementary sum of £394,000)
4,592,000


7. Colonial Grants and Loans (including a Supplementary sum of £1,931,000)
8,279,000


8. Development and Welfare (Colonial Office)
5,250,000


9. Department of Technical Co-operation (including a Supplementary sum of £913,000)
21,141,000


11. Development and Welfare (Commonwealth Relations Office)
162,000


12. Commonwealth War Graves Commission
883,000



130,911,000

Question put and agreed to.

Class III

That a sum, not exceeding £107,336,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
9,123,000


3. Home Office (Civil Defence Services)
9,060,000


4. Scottish Home and Health Department (Civil Defence Services)
1,412,000


5. Police, England and Wales
53,950,000


6. Police, Scotland
8,081,000


7. Prisons, England and Wales
14,708,000


8. Prisons, Scotland
1,884,000


9. Child Care, England and Wales
3,086,000


10. Child Care, Scotland
573,000


11. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
900


12. County Courts
624,000


13. Legal Aid Fund
3,884,000


14. Law Charges
627,000


15. Law Charges and Courts of Law, Scotland
267,000


16. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
57,000



107,336,900

Question put and agreed to.

Class IV

That a sum, not exceeding £496,220,550, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Board of Trade
4,948,000


2. Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports and Industrial Efficiency and Trading, etc., Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £8,750)
4,808,750


3. Board of Trade (Promotion of Local Employment)
22,591,000


4. Export Credits
900


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees, etc.)
900


6. Ministry of Labour
20,331,000


7. Ministry of Aviation
173,800,000


8. Ministry of Aviation (Purchasing (Repayment) Services)
14,500,000


9. Ministry of Aviation (Special Materials)
41,009,000


10. Civil Aerodromes and Air Navigational Services
8,145,000


11. Ministry of Transport
3,728,000


12. Roads, etc., England and Wales
121,181,000


13. Roads, etc., Scotland
15,533,000


14. Transport (Shipping and Special Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £325,000)
1,694,000


15. Transport (Railways and Waterways Boards)
61,471,000


16. Ministry of Power
2,479,000



496,220,550

Question put and agreed to.

Class V

That a sum, not exceeding £231,348,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
15,400,000


2. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland
5,613,000


3. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
50,420,000


4. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Grants and Subsidies)
8,669,000


5. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
112,335,000






£


6. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (Agricultural Price Guarantees)
15,770,000


7. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Agricultural and Food Services)
8,027,000


8. Food (Strategic Reserves)
1,473,000


9. Fishery Grants and Services
3,479,000


10. Fisheries (Scotland) and Herring Industry
1,762,000


11. Forestry Commission
8,400,000



231,348,000

Question put and agreed to.

Class VI

That a sum, not exceeding £1,598,798,600, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Housing and Local Government (including a Supplementary sum of £9,662,000)
23,626,000


2. Scottish Development Department
2,427,000


3. Housing, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £4,000)
52,474,000


4. Housing, Scotland
10,211,000


5. General Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
416,786,000


6. General Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
42,902,000


7. Rate Deficiency, etc., Grants to Local Revenues, England and Wales
109,450,000


8. Equalisation and Transitional Grants to Local Revenues, Scotland
14,638,000


9A. Department of Education and Science (Revised sum)
4,269,000


9B. Education: Departmental (England and Wales) (Revised sum)
90,684,000


9c. Awards to Students (Revised sum)
3,427,000


10. Scottish Education Department
16,776,000


11. Ministry of Education (Teachers' Superannuation)
900


12. Scottish Education Department (Teachers' Superannuation)
900


14. National Health Service, etc. (Hospital Services, etc.), England and Wales
329,583,000


17. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), England and Wales
900







£


19. National Health Service (Superannuation, etc.), Scotland
900


20. Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance
5,154,000


21. National Insurance
157,600,000


22. Family Allowances
93,775,000


23. National Assistance Board
153,406,000


24. War Pensions, etc.
71,607,000



1,598,798,600

Question put and agreed to.

Class VII

That a sum, not exceeding £132,596,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Universities and Colleges, etc., Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £6,300,000)
94,218,000


3. Atomic Energy
10,087,000


4. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
16,608,000


5. Medical Research Council
5,518,000


6. Agricultural Research Council
5,393,000


7. Nature Conservancy
497,000


8. Grants for Science
275,000



132,596,000

Question put and agreed to.

Class VIII

That a sum, not exceeding £4,861,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. British Museum
737,000


2. British Museum (Natural History)
497,000


3. Science Museum
268,000


4. Victoria and Albert Museum
450,000


5. Imperial War Museum
65,000


6. London Museum
45,000


7. National Gallery
104,000


8. National Maritime Museum (including a Supplementary' sum of £15,000)
98,000


9. National Portrait Gallery
44,000


10. Tate Gallery
81,000


11. Wallace Collection
40,000


12. Royal Scottish Museum
88,000


13. National Galleries of Scotland
50,000


14. National Library of Scotland
80,000






£


15. National Museum of ' Antiquities of Scotland
19,000


16. Grants for the Arts
2,195,000



4,861,000

Question put and agreed to.

Class IX

That a sum, not exceeding £222,215,900 be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Ministry of Public Building and Works
20,280,000


2. Public Buildings, etc., United Kingdom
36,150,000


3. Public Buildings Overseas
4,751,000


4. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Navy Department)
16,500,000


5. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Army Department)
40,969,000


6. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Defence (Air Force Department)
31,667,000


7. Works and Buildings for the Ministry of Aviation
6,700,000


8. Works and Buildings for Royal Ordnance Factories
767,000


9. Houses of Parliament Buildings
367,000


10. Royal Palaces
555,000


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
924,000


12. Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments
958,000


13. Rates on Government Property
13,500,000


14. Stationery and Printing
11,950,000


15. Central Office of Information
5,289,000


16. Government Actuary
23,000


17. Government Hospitality
105,000


18. Civil Superannuation, etc.
30,760,000


19. Post Office Superannuation, etc.
900



222,215,900

Question put and agreed to.

Class X

That a sum, not exceeding £5,020,400, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Charity Commission
212,000


2. Crown Estate Office
121,000


3. Friendly Societies Registry
88,000


4. Royal Mint
900


5. National Debt Office
900







£


6. Public Works Loan Commission
900


7. Public Trustee
900


8. Land Registry
900


9. War Damage Commission
147,000


10. Office of the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Agreements (including a Supplementary sum of £19,000)
121,000


11. Ordnance Survey
2,546,000


12. Public Record Office
134,000


13. Scottish Record Office
42,000


14. Registrar General's Office
565,000


15. Registrar General's Office, Scotland
74,000


16. Department of the Registers of Scotland
900


17. National Savings Committee
965,000



5,020,400

Question put and agreed to.

Class XI

That a sum, not exceeding £57,642,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class XI of the Civil Estimates, viz.:—



£


1. Broadcasting
44,873,000


2. Carlisle State Management District
900


3. State Management Districts, Scotland
900


4. Pensions, etc. (India, Pakistan and Burma)
4,122,000


5. Supplements to Pensions, etc. (Overseas Services)
1,072,000


6. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
665,000


7. Irish Land Purchase Services
520,000


8. Development Fund
861,000


9. Secret Service
5,000,000


10. Miscellaneous Expenses (including a Supplementary sum of £1,000)
442,000


11. Repayments to Civil Contingencies Fund
86,000



57,642,800

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (CENTRAL) ESTIMATE, 1964–65

That a sum, not exceeding £17,473,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for the salaries and expenses of the Central Defence Staffs, the Defence Secretariat and the Central Defence Scientific Staff and of certain joint service Establishments; expenses

in connection with International Defence Organisations, including international subscriptions; and certain grants in aid.

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (NAVY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

That a sum, not exceeding £334,462,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, viz.:—



£


2. Royal Naval Reserves
1,323,000


3. Navy Department Headquarters
10,657,000


6. Naval Stores, Armament, Victualling and other Material Supply Services
174,822,000


7. H.M. Ships, Aircraft and Weapons, New Construction and Repairs
147,660,000



334,462,000

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (ARMY) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

That a sum, not exceeding £297,629,800, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, viz:—



£


3. Army Department Headquarters
6,479,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
113,400,000


5. Movements
27,520,000


6. Supplies
42,730,000


7. Stores and Equipment
107,500,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services (Supplementary sum)
800



297,629,800

Question put and agreed to.

DEFENCE (AIR) ESTIMATES, 1964–65

That a sum, not exceeding £131,891,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, viz:—



£


3. Air Force Department Headquarters
4,550,000


4. Civilians at Outstations and the Meteorological Office
43,870,000


5. Movements
13,700,000


6. Supplies
51,000,000


8. Lands, Buildings and Works
3,130,000


10. Non-effective Services
15,640,000


11. Additional Married Quarters
1,000



131,891,000

Question put and agreed to.

NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,606,981 4s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 4th February, 1964 (HC. 92) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (H.C. 213).

Question put and agreed to.

ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £3,086,652 6s. 7d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 1st February, 1964 (H.C. 91) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (HC. 213).

Question put and agreed to.

AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1962–63

That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,780,352 10s. 9d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1963, to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to one Vote for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts on another Vote, not offset by a saving in expenditure, as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 6th February, 1964 (H.C. 99) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Third Report (H.C. 213).

Question put and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965, the sum of £4,052,822,950 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom—[Mr. Alan Green.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow;

Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: On a point of order. I observe from the provisional selection of Amendments announced in the Lobby that Amendments by way of two new Clauses in my name, one of which is also in the name of another hon. Member—Clauses which have no novelty—are not being called. These are Clauses which were passed on Second Reading on 20th March and had been passed in their entirety in another place, but mysteriously and clandestinely, without any discussion of their merits in the Scottish Standing Committee, were wrenched from the Bill. In the first instance, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking that before the final selection is made you permit me to give such explanation of the new Clauses as to enable you to form a judgment whether or not they should be called.
As you will know, this has ample precedent. It is stated on page 482 of Erskine May that
The Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of his amendment as may be necessary to form a judgment upon it.
This has occured on other occasions, as is pointed out in footnotes in Erskine May.
I invite you, therefore, in the first instance to exercise your right to direct me to give a short explanation on which you can form a judgment whether you should or should not call the new Clauses.

Mr. Speaker: If I do not ask the hon. Member to give an explanation, it is no discourtesy to him. I understand it. I think that the hon. Member knows well enough the strange difficulty with which the Chair is here confronted in circumstances which, in my view and belief, are unique. Whatever decision I should make about these Clauses inflicts misfortune upon somebody, and my lamentable conclusion was that, in view of what happened in the Standing Committee, the minimum injustice was effected by not


selecting them. I am very sorry, but I cannot hear argument about it.

Mr. Abse: Surely, Mr. Speaker, I should at least be permitted to give you the reasons why I am asking you, which I have not yet done, to invite me to put forward and explain these Clauses.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry. I cannot allow argument about it. The Chair has this duty imposed upon it and, in those circumstances, it is extremely difficult but I cannot hear argument about it.

Mr. Abse: May I ask you, then, whether I may move a dilatory Motion, as is my right, under Standing Order No. 28? I beg to move,
That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
I move this Motion because otherwise, in my view, we shall be placing the women of Scotland in a situation in which they will be permanently in an inferior position from those in England and Wales. Unless we pause, we shall be left with a truncated Measure which will be a charter for bad husbands in Scotland.
First, it means that without the Clauses a woman in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, could be chained for ever to a husband whom a terrible fate had reduced to a wild and dangerous animal.
Secondly, unlike in England and Wales, a self-centred husband, a boor, utterly devoid of affection for his wife, could almost with impugnity expel her from the house, which is is not permitted to do in England and Wales.
Thirdly, and finally, if we proceed with the Bill in its present form, a wife could never free herself from her husband, who is a husband in name, but not in fact. A woman whom a man decides to marry in Scotland has a right to be a wife and not a nun. She has the right to hope for motherhood. Unless we permit these Clauses to be discussed and to be adjudicated upon in the House we fail to do our duty.
I am moving this Motion because I believe that in the unique circumstances in which the House has passed a Bill in its entirety, giving these rights to the women of Scotland, when the Bill has been passed in another Chamber and then we find that without any explanation whatsoever from the Committee they are usurping the position of the House

of Commons and the whole of Parliament by determining what shall be discussed by the House, this cannot be correct.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that you find yourself facing a unique situation, but, with great respect, you should not be the master of the House in deciding what legislation we shall pass. When the House of Commons has decided, on Second Reading, that these Clauses should be in the Bill, you should not tell us that we cannot discuss them again. I believe that because there is a major constitutional issue, we cannot limit our compassion as Members for constituencies in England and Wales. I cannot believe that it is proper that we should proceed with a Bill which is in its present form because of a mixture, an amalgam, of religious prejudice, of Government bungling and, in fact, of all the evasive stratagems which, unfortunately, begin to come into existence whenever a Bill impinging upon human relationships comes into this House. For these reasons, I am moving the Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulties, as he appreciates mine, but, as a servant of the House, I cannot accept the Motion.

Mr. Michael Foot: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), Mr. Speaker. You have said that you cannot accept the Motion to adjourn the debate, which my hon. Friend sought to move. Could you tell the House what then will be the position of the House if my hon. Friend puts on the Order Paper the Motion which, I gather, he might put down criticising the selection of Amendments by the Chair? What would be the position of the House as to when such a Motion could be considered? Is it not a fact that this would be the only way in which a Ruling of the Chair could be questioned?

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Divorce (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Speaker: My answer to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is that it will not be within my control when the Motion is on the Order Paper. I shall listen with interest when the House discusses it.

Mr. Foot: But, Mr. Speaker, you have yourself said that this is a unique situation, a situation which has never arisen before and in which the House has no precedent to guide it. Surely, in such a situation, it would be open to the Chair to say that there should be acceptance of a Motion to adjourn the debate so that the House might have an opportunity properly to consider the Motion to be put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool to the effect that it would prefer a different selection of Amendments.
The only way in which the Chair could enable that to happen, on a unique occasion, would be to accept my hon. Friend's Motion to adjourn our proceedings. The House could then decide whether it wished to adjourn to enable the other Motion to take precedence over the discussions which you would call if the Motion were not accepted.

Mr. Speaker: It is a matter which the House leaves to the Chair's discretion. I must wear the responsibility, and I do. I cannot go further about it. I must wear it in the difficult circumstances and we must now proceed.

Mr. Abse: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand, you have ruled you cannot accept a Motion to adjourn the debate, but, according to Standing Order No. 28, your discretion in this matter is to some degree fettered, for it is stated as mandatory that you are able to refuse to accept such a Motion if you believe that it is an abuse of the rules of the House.
We are here in a unique situation. The Standing Committee, as I say, is usurping the position of both Houses of Parliament. Could it seriously be suggested in these circumstances, when you have not, with respect, a wide discretion, that in taking this important point I am abusing the rules of the House? The very anxiety and concern which you yourself have expressed shows that this is a weighty matter, and certainly not a frivolous one put without thought or deep consideration. Moreover, it is a matter

which affects the fundamental rights of men and women in Scotland.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that, unless you consider that what I have done is an abuse of the rules of the House, you cannot rule the Motion out of order in the peremptory way in which, with respect, you have done so.

Mr. Speaker: I shall try to help the hon. Gentleman, if I can, to follow what I am doing, as a servant of the House. It is not really open to hon. Members to do anything but accept the selection of the Chair, because selection is entrusted to the Chair. It is only a matter of courtesy, really, that I allow these public discussions to proceed. I do not wish to appear dictatorial. The difficulty is that, subject to the selection of the Chair—which can be challenged if that be thought right, but not now—there is no excuse for putting off what the House now has to consider, namely, consideration of the Bill. It is in that sense that I am obliged not to accept a dilatory Motion.

Mr. A. Woodburn: Further to the points which have been raised, Mr. Speaker, would you clear up one matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) seems to doubt? Is it not a fact that the Scottish Standing Committee which dealt with the Bill was perfectly within its rights in deleting these Clauses as part of its duty in amending the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that that arises now. It might affect my selection, but that is a different matter.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to the point of order. Will you bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, that this Committee consisted of a minority of Scottish Members and that there is another opinion in Scotland about whether these provisions should be inserted in the Bill? There will certainly be regret in Scotland that in this matter the House of Lords has been more progressive than the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: I am anxiously troubled about these various matters. I came to the conclusion that the least injustice would be effected by the course which


I have adopted. That is why I adopted it.

Mr. Iorwerth Thomas: I understand from the explanation which you gave, Mr. Speaker, that the reason why you made this decision was that you tried to give a decision which would cause the minimum injustice. May I ask you, very respectfully, to consider the constitutional aspects? The decision means that private Members, and the House of Commons as a whole, are deprived of their constitutional right, according to the Standing Orders, to move Amendments or to propose new Clauses to any Bill reported back from a Committee.
Therefore, in the exercise of such discretion as you have indicated, may I ask whether you are of the opinion that, constitutionally, more damage and injury has been done by your decision than would have been done if you had accepted the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse)?

Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that those aspects were a matter of great concern to me, and that I tried hard to balance them all out. But I cannot alter my decision in these circumstances, which are peculiar.

New Clause.—(AMENDMENT TO THE LAW REGARDING DIVORCE ON THE GROUND OF INCURABLE INSANITY.)

The Court shall not grant decree of divorce on the ground of the incurable insanity of the defender unless it is satisfied on medical evidence that the form of insanity from which the defender is suffering is incurable so far as medical knowledge can ascertain.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The proposed new Clause may appeal to those who feel aggrieved about the previous proceedings in that it arises from the old Clause 5, in other words, the new Clause which has not been called. The case rests on Section 1(1,a) of the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act, 1958, which was a United Kingdom Act. It changed the definition of incurable insanity in relation to patients who were formally certified but who were described in that Act as voluntary in-patients.
The 1958 Act preceded the Mental Health Act, 1959, which applies to England and Wales, and the Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960. It had its origins in the Royal Commission on Divorce which conducted its inquiries and set out its opinions between 1951 and 1955. Those Scottish Members who feel that we should enjoy the same privileges and rights as citizens in England and Wales believe that we should bring Scottish law into line with that of England and Wales.
I confess that there has been a great deal of good will on both sides of the Committee in this respect. I thank the sponsor of the Bill and all those concerned, including the Lord Advocate who has since written to me on this matter, for the way in which discussion and thought on this matter have proceeded.
I am proposing this new Clause in the knowledge that the Government will not like it and that the sponsor will probably not accept it, but I believe that the case for it and the reply to it, if acceptance of the new Clause is refused, should go on record. I am sure that many hon. Members, including those who have certain feelings about other matters which preceded this new Clause, look forward to the day when we might have a more comprehensive divorce Act which will incorporate many of the provisions which have since been abandoned. This is one provision which I hope hon. Members will not abandon. As I say, I have proposed the new Clause solely to get the case for it on record.
The case is this. In the current Health Report for Scotland, there is a remarkable table of statistics on page 66 which demonstrates the astonishing change in our practice regarding mental health in Scotland. In 1938, the total of both categories of patients suffering from mental ill-health—those certified insane and those who were voluntary patients—was 19,943. In 1963, the total for both categories was 19,435, a very small decrease. The figures are almost comparable.
The interesting thing about these figures is that in 1938, the total number of patients subject to compulsory powers was 18,463, while the total undergoing treatment voluntarily was 1,480. In 1963, on the other hand, almost the reverse was true. Some


17,229 patients were treated voluntarily, while 2,206 were compulsorily detained.
The point is that in the process of law regarding cases of divorce based upon incurable insanity, the pursuer no longer has to allege incurable insanity, but the defender or curator on his behalf must assert either that he has not been a voluntary in-patient for five years or if he has, that his condition is capable of cure. In the hurried proceedings of the Committee, we did not all fully appreciate or ventilate our views and thoughts on this matter, but the subsequent interval has given us time to clarify our views. I feel that there is a strong case for the new Clause.
I have carefully examined the Lord Advocate's letter and also the letter which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) sent me and on which I should like to comment presently. It is not any party recommendation, but it is the recommendation of the Royal Commission that we in Scotland should bring our law into line with that of England. It asked for the comments of the General Board of Control, the body which preceded the Mental Welfare Commission, and although the Board of Control was not satisfied that the change was necessary, the Royal Commission came out wholeheartedly in favour of a change in the law, saying:
We have carefully considered the Board's representations, but we remain of the opinion that the court should require positive proof of incurability.
The words of the new Clause are a direct extract from the Royal Commission's Report, and in order to be fair to all concerned I have used the phrase:
so far as medical knowledge can ascertain.
I will now deal with the objections to the Clause. The argument of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West in Committee on 7th July was in three parts. The first part was that the Clause might not be properly worded. This may be an argument of drafting, but I have taken advice and am advised that it is fairly and legally drafted and requires no further embellishment. As I say, it may be a matter of legal argument, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to comment on it, but I do not admit that it is legally imperfect.
The second argument was that the Scottish law of evidence provides that there must be corroboration and that it would be necessary for all doctors to be produced to give evidence. I refute that by calling in aid the Lord Advocate, who in his letter described how the present process in the Scottish courts continues. Having examined that, it seems to me that even under the present rules the argument does not stand. By convention, almost by unfailing convention, a report is taken from the Mental Welfare Commission, and there is also a medical witness who is bound to be called in favour of the pursuer in the divorce action. That being so, it seems to me to be legitimate that the defender ought, through the Mental Welfare Commission, to be helped to get an independent medical witness to sustain his own position irrespective of what the Mental Welfare Commission submits. So, in view of what the Lord Advocate has said, the hon. Gentleman's second argument is not valid.
10.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman's third argument was the complaint that I was transferring the onus from the defender to the pursuer. That is exactly what the 1958 Act did. By allowing periods of voluntary treatment to be in a sense a penalty against the person in a divorce action, that Act added the compensating device that there had to be adequate proof of incurable insanity. In other words, if one takes away from the mentally ill person who is not certifiable the advantage of not having been certified and counts against him the days, months and years when he has been a voluntary in-patient getting treatment from a psychiatrist and simply being on the roll of the hospital—the Royal Commission argued lengthily about this—it was recommended by the Royal Commission that that person should be given adequate safeguards about medical evidence in relation to incurable insanity.
I concede that the English practice regarding the law of evidence even now may not be as thorough or, one might say pernickety as it is in Scotland, but I cannot see why we in Scotland should simply rest content on past practice which may be the same as we should achieve through passing the Clause when we ought to put on the Statute Book in this Clause to put in line, in theory as well


as in practice, the rights of persons who are unfortunate enough to be in the position of having to defend themselves in a divorce action simply because they have suffered from a terrible degree of mental ill-health for such a long time.
I hope I have dealt fairly with the arguments of the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. We have moved in great harmony on these points, and I hope that we can now help to improve the Bill by accepting this Clause.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I have listened with great attention to what the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) has said, and I very much regret that I cannot agree that the Clause would improve the Bill.
The hon. Member raised this subject during the last sitting of the Committee by means of a manuscript Amendment and spoke very attractively and forcefully upon it. At that time I was very much impressed by what he said. He said that the Royal Commission had suggested legislation along these lines, and he also spoke about the extension of medical knowledge. Naturally, I have very great respect for his professional qualifications and was much impressed by what he said. But since then we have had time for reflection. At that time we were very rushed. I promised to give consideration to what he had said before Report, and I have done so. It now seems to me that to a very large extent the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the law of divorce on the ground of incurable insanity.
Before a divorce can be granted on this ground it must be proved that the defender has been in hospital for a period of five years prior to the raising of the action under care and treatment for mental illness and it must be averred that his insanity is incurable. Under the law of Scotland, it has always been a presumption that, if a person has been in hospital under treatment for mental illness for a period of five years, he is incurable; but that is purely presumption and it is a rebuttable presumption. It is open to the defender in an action for divorce on this ground to rebut that presumption if he can.

Dr. Mabon: But the hon. Gentleman has missed out an important word. The

provision concerns compulsory detention for a period of five years.

Mr. Hendry: No. That is not the position. The person must have been under treatment in a hospital for mental illness for a period of five years.

Mr. William Ross: As an insane person.

Mr. Hendry: Yes. The presumption is that the person is incurable. But, as I have said, it is purely a presumption and it is a rebuttable presumption. It is open to the defender in these circumstances to rebut that presumption if he can. There are adequate safeguards in the law of Scotland to enable an insane defender to do that because, in every action of that kind, the court automatically appoints a curator ad litem to look after the interests of the insane person.
The curator ad litem is, to all intents and purposes, an officer of the court, with the duty of advising it in the interests of the defender. In addition, the court invariably asks the Mental Welfare Commission to report whether, in its opinion, the defender is or is not incurable. Thus, there are adequate safeguards for a defender in these circumstances.
This has been the law of Scotland since 1939. Divorce on the ground of incurable insanity was first introduced into the law of England by Sir Alan Herbert's Act of 1938 and was introduced into the law of Scotland in 1939 by another Private Member's Act. This answered a point put by the then Lord Advocate, the late Lord Cooper, who suggested that the presumption should form part of the law of Scotland because of the very much higher standards of proof required in Scottish courts as compared with courts in England and Wales. Lord Cooper was of the opinion that it would be almost impossible, under the rules of evidence in Scottish courts, to prove incurable insanity without a presumption of that sort.
I believe, therefore, that this new Clause is unnecessary, provides no safeguard for a defender in the circumstances and, at the same time, is very undesirable because it would upset the law in practice in Scottish courts at present. For these reasons, I cannot advise the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Ross: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has not seen fit, having had time for contemplation, to give the Clause a friendlier welcome. I am not yet entirely convinced by him. Two points stick in my mind about this. The Royal Commission reported in 1955. The Act which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) seeks to amend—the Divorce (Scotland) Act—was passed in 1938. We had a considerable change in the law of mental illness in 1960.
From 1938 right through until 1960 the emphasis in mental health was to call a person who was mentally ill insane. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock were of people who were compulsorily detained, having been declared to be insane. It was these people of whom it could be foreseen that there would be a presumption of incurability if they had been detained for five years preceding the hearing.
However, the position has now completely altered. Following the 1960 Act, people in mental hospitals are not necessarily detained. The emphasis has been on the possibility of cure by modern medical treatment. The emphasis has been on getting people to go into hospital voluntarily, without the formalities and compulsions of certification.
The result has been that the overwhelming number of people now in mental hospitals—and we are glad of it—are there of their own free will. The fact that they are there of their own free will itself argues a sense of sanity. The danger is that this presumption will now apply to people who have had treatment over the period of five years. The presumption is against them, whether they like it or not, until such time as it is proved otherwise. It is surely unfair that they should be in that position. Surely our law should progress in this respect as it has with mental health. Obviously, if a person is receiving voluntary treatment, he does not need to go into hospital and he should not be rendered liable to this provision simply by going to hospital for treament.
My hon. Friend is being very reasonable. It is clear that we have to make sure that, so far as medical evidence can show it, it must be proven that there is incurable insanity, and it should be

for the pursuer and not for the defender to prove that.
I notice that on this occasion the hon. Gentleman did not try to refute the validity of the wording of the Clause. He has now exhausted his right to speak again, for we are not in Committee. He said that my hon. Friend had raised this issue in Committee by a manuscript Amendment. He did not say that that manuscript Amendment came before us at one o'clock in the morning. On that day, we began our proceedings at half-past ten in the morning, finished at 1 p.m., started again at four o'clock and went on, with various breaks, until very late. One of the great weaknesses of the treatment of the Bill has been that we have not had the usual time for reflection and for putting down and studying Amendments. It is not fair to blame my hon. Friend for that. If anyone is to be blamed, it is someone else.
10.30 p.m.
Even at this stage I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this to make sure that we do not so upset the balance of proof that it might affect the beneficial working of the Mental Health Act, in that people who are receiving treatment might be penalised by the working of our divorce laws.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would be good enough to point out to the House that in his letter the Lord Advocate said that it was not the validity of the Clause that was wrong, but the timing of it.

Mr. Ross: I wondered whether to make that point. I did not want to introduce extraneous matters. It is a pity that the Lord Advocate is not a Member of the House. It would be helpful if we could have man-to-man exchanges to get enlightenment, and to persuade the Lord Advocate that we are not ignorant of the law of Scotland.
The Lord Advocate's letter is very well written. I am sorry that he has to use the same typist and the same typewriter as the hon. Gentleman does when he writes letters. In his letter the Lord Advocate said that the timing did not seem right. There is a possibility of doing this by agreement. This is a sensible new Clause, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will


realise that there is time for him to change his mind.
The hon. Lady is now going to give us the Government's view, and the Lord Advocate's view. I hope that she will help me to persuade the hon. Gentleman that what we are proposing is right. Let us do one thing together after a day of controversy. It will be to everyone's advantage if the new Clause is accepted.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lady Tweedsmuir): Despite that enticing invitation from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I am afraid that it will be my duty to advise the House not to accept the new Clause, although it was so persuasively moved by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).
I, too, was somewhat taken with the hon. Gentleman's persuasive powers. I think that what is really on his mind, and what is worrying him and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, is whether recent legislation and this different attitude towards mental illness has meant that the defender's interest in a case where divorce is sought after five years' detention in a hospital for incurable insanity is properly maintained, or whether he is being prejudiced in any way under the existing law. Having been advised most carefully on this by the Lord Advocate, I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman's fears are groundless and I shall seek—as he wished it to be done—to place on the record the reasons why we think that the new Clause should be resisted.
First, I should perhaps say to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock that the 1960 Act did not affect the meaning of incurable insanity. That definition remains, and is briefly summed up by saying that the insanity must be of such severity as to disable the sufferer from looking after his own affairs and in the normal way of living a normal married life. "Incurability" is to be understood in its normal meaning.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that this proposal was the Scottish recommendation No. 11. He based his case on two main points: first—although this was one to which he did not devote very much attention tonight—that it worked well in England; and secondly,

and more important, that as recent figures showed that such a large number of people now go voluntarily for inpatient treatment, we should consider whether the present law was adequately working in the defender's interest.
The hon. Member felt that if there is any risk that the presumption operates against the interests of the defender that risk might be enhanced—as the Royal Commission said—by the extension carried out in the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Act, 1958, of various kinds of stays for five years in hospital qualifying for divorce—which range from five years compulsory detention to all residence in hospital for five years, including residence as a voluntary patient.
The extension of various types of "five years in hospital" do not have a direct bearing on the matter, because if it were accepted, for the purpose of argument, that because voluntary residence in hospital is included a greater proportion of people than before of those who might be the subject of divorce actions are not incurably insane, all that this would mean is that there would be more cases in which evidence would be brought by the defence to rebut the presumption.
Therefore, the question before the House tonight must turn on whether the safeguards for the defender are adequate to ensure that no case slips through undefended without the production of rebutting evidence where the circumstances suggest that that defender was not incurably insane. They are very strong safeguards for just this purpose. A curator—an officer of the court and the guardian of the defender's interest—is appointed in every case. The court has the power—which is invariably exercised—to ask the Mental Welfare Commission to produce an independent medical report on the likelihood of the defender's recovery—an independent report that is available to both parties and to the court itself.
Therefore, in a case where the Commission's report casts doubt on the defender's incurable insanity and the pursuer did not drop the proceedings, the curator would be under a duty to the court to lodge a defence and put forward evidence rebutting the presumption, so


that the court could direct itself to the question of the defender's incurable insanity.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In that case, does the curator then seek evidence other than the Mental Welfare Commission's evidence?

Lady Tweedsmuir: If the curator, in the first instance, in exercising his discretion, had decided that he would not lead evidence to rebut the presumption and, nevertheless, the court asked for a report, as it invariably does, from the Mental Welfare Commission, and it felt that this report cast a doubt whether the defender was incurably insane, it would ask the curator to investigate the evidence again, and he would be asked to give his reasons why he thought that the presumption in the first place was not rebuttable.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether there is any evidence that the present law has given rise to any injustice. That is what is worrying the hon. Member. I understand that there are less than 20 divorces of this kind every year. As far as the Government are aware there is no evidence of any injustice. Since the Royal Commission reported the Government have not received a single representation in favour of the change, or a suggestion that it is an urgent necessity because of injustice arising from the present law.
Therefore, the second question is: can we be sure that merely because of advances of medical knowledge, what was decided not to be workable before is workable now? I suggest that as we have no evidence that injustice arises, and

as there are these safeguards, a very heavy onus rests on anybody who wishes to alter the law, which appears to work well in Scotland at this time. Since the new Clause was put down, a very careful examination of the law has been carried out by the Lord Advocate. I have given his advice to the House. There are also legal precedents, and under Scottish law there are high standards of proof. If there were a decision to alter the law, a great deal of consultation would be necessary with all concerned.
The principal question is: does the law work? The answer is, "Yes". Is there injustice? We have no evidence that there is injustice. I therefore suggest to the House that we should not accept the Clause.

Mr. E. G. Willis: Would the noble Lady answer a question asked by an hon. Member about other medical evidence in addition to the evidence from the Mental Welfare Commission?

Lady Tweedsmuir: I thought that I had answered that question. I said that if the curator has not brought forward the evidence, the court can always call on the Mental Welfare Commission for a report. If that report gave the court cause to consider that the defender was not incurably insane, they would ask the curator, first, on what grounds he had exercised his discretion not to put forward the evidence, and, secondly, whether he would investigate further the circumstances of the case, and he would have to have access to all the medical evidence which he felt was relevant.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2.—(TEMPORARY COHABITATION WITH A VIEW TO RECONCILIATION NOT CONDONATION.)

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out subsection (3).
This subsection relates to one of the Clauses which was omitted from the Bill in Committee and it therefore no longer has relevance to the Bill. It is appropriate to leave it out.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(RESTRICTION OF CERTAIN DEFENCES.)

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craigton): I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, after "insanity" to insert
unless the insanity lasted for a period not exceeding six months.

Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the next two Amendments.

Mr. Millan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, they deal with an entirely different question from the one in this Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: So be it. We will deal at the moment only with the Amendment in line 26.

Mr. Millan: The Clause deals with defences in cases of an action for divorce on grounds of cruelty. I understand that it is a legitimate defence to such an action that the defender was insane at the time of the cruelty complained of. I think that the principle is that if the defender were insane it cannot be proved that he had intended to commit injury on the pursuer and therefore it would be wrong to grant the divorce. This can give rise to very distressing circumstances in which an individual may have been guilty of quite appalling cruelty towards his spouse and yet no action for divorce on the grounds of cruelty would be successful.
I agree with the general intent of the subsection to remove this defence of insanity as it obtains in actions of this kind. However, I am not completely satisfied with the Clause as drafted, for I wonder whether it might be too sweep-

ing because it states that it would no longer be a defence that the defender
(a) was at the material time suffering from insanity…".
What exactly is meant by "at the material time"? Is it at the time the cruelty was committed?
10.45 p.m.
It might happen that the defender was temporarily insane when he was guilty of cruelty to his wife, to take the more common case of the wife bringing an action against her husband. But the same husband could well be cured and be perfectly sane at the time the action came forward. It is at this point that it appears that the change proposed in the law by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) is not as completely acceptable as in other circumstances it might be.
If the hon. Gentleman were suggesting that we change the law if both at the material time—when the cruelty was committed—the defender was insane and there was some continuing insanity, I would accept his proposal, but to leave it simply as it stands could, in certain circumstances, give rise to injustice to the defender. This is very much a question of balance. The purpose of my Amendment is to insert the words:
unless the insanity lasted for a period not exceeding six months ".
In other words, if the Amendment were accepted it would be possible for a defender to have a period of six months when he would be permitted to be insane, as it were, and cruel to his wife, and provided he recovered thereafter no grounds for an action for divorce would be possible.
I cannot claim that this kind of Amendment to the law would work fairly in every circumstance, but neither do I believe that the Clause as drafted would work fairly in every case. It is, I suppose, possible that the defender could be insane for a very short period indeed, perhaps for a few weeks. I am not qualified to discuss the medical aspects of this and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will give us the benefit of his advice. Nor am I happy about the expression "insane", and while I would have liked to have used a word with a clearer definition, I have used this one


because the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has used it in the Bill.
It seems that the Clause as drafted would enable a pursuer to be successful in sueing for divorce in a case where the defender might have been insane for only a very short period and might, before the time of the action and at that time, be completely cured and no longer be acting in a cruel way towards his pursuer wife. As I say, the period of cruelty might have been short, and it is for this reason that I suggest this Amendment to the absolute terms which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is proposing.
I am in favour of the change in the law the hon. Member is suggesting, particularly since it is intolerable to think that, insanse or not, a husband could be cruel to his wife and there might be no remedy whatever available to the wife. I support his attempt to improve the situation, but I wonder whether he has not gone too far so that, in certain circumstances, injustice might occur. I hope, therefore, that he will look sympathetically at the Amendment, which would appear to represent a modest safeguard for the defender and one which we could add to the Bill without committing any injustice to the wife or, for that matter, the husband who might at some time have been badly treated.

Mr. Hendry: The question whether insanity should be advanced in the case of an action for divorce on the ground of cruelty is one which has troubled the courts for many years, and indeed it troubled the Royal Commission which considered the point. The difficulty is that cruelty as ground for divorce is regarded as analogous to a criminal offence and in the case of a criminal offence in Scotland insanity is a good defence. On that analogy the courts in Scotland have hitherto regarded insanity as a good defence to a charge of cruelty where it is made a ground for divorce.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has said, this has given rise in many instances to considerable hardship.
The other cause of difficulty is that the courts always feel that there may be injustice to the victim because the victim may continue to suffer the most unspeakable cruelty. The Royal Com-

mission was greatly worried about this and it thought that on balance the welfare of the victim of the cruelty was preferable to the welfare of the insane person who was inflicting the cruelty, and the Royal Commission recommended along the lines of the Clause.
But, having said that, I have to consider how relevant the proposed Amendment is to the situation. It is true that an outbreak of insanity causing cruelty may be of short duration, but the cruelty is no less real for that and a matrimonial offence may have resulted from that comparatively short-lived insanity. Cruelty for the purpose of divorce must inflict an injury on the health of the victim, or at any rate must threaten it seriously. In the case which we are considering the health of the victim has either suffered or been seriously threatened and therefore, irrespective of the duration of the insanity, the cruelty has been inflicted and is ground for divorce. On balance I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: By a strange coincidence there appeared in the Scottish Press reports of divorce cases on the very day after one of our debates and I took a bleary-eyed look at the newspapers after surviving a long night watch in the Scottish Standing Committee. I had always been in sympathy with the arguments which the Royal Commission has advanced and which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) has incorporated in his Bill, but having heard discussions on the Bill and having looked at these things and considered how they would be affected by a change in the law, I have felt uneasy. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has moved the Amendment. It is right that we should ventilate the point.
It is conceivable that a wife seeking a divorce might have been responsible for driving her husband to such distraction that he suffered a mental breakdown. Whether or not he is suffering from insanity in medical terms is a matter for argument. If it is insanity within the definition which the Under-Secretary read out, it seems to me that the poor wretch suffers a rather helpless state of affairs. If this is the definition in law


it strengthens my hon. Friend's argument. If we go the whole hog as suggested by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West we know that we are creating a margin of abuse.
I wonder whether we in Scotland ought not to look more closely at this and allow such an Amendment as this for a period of six months. At this stage, of course, we cannot change our minds and suggest such an Amendment for three or nine months; we must settle for six months. But the margin of cases might well be in favour of my hon. Friend's Amendment, and there might be less abuse of this procedure if we were to accept it.
I have in mind much of the evidence which exists in many of our departments of psychological medicine and among psychiatrists about the duration of mental illness. We all pay due regard to and salute the progress that has been made in medicine, but many of us, including doctors, do not appreciate what advances have been made. Many rapid strides have been made in psychological medicine and treatment nowadays. The deficiency of various amino-acids and other materials which we had thought played no part in body physiology has been suggested as the cause of many acute episodes of mental illness. In an acute episode of mental illness it is conceivable that a husband or wife may cause immense cruelty to one another, and it would be unfortunate if such an episode, which my hon. Friend defines as not exceeding six months, were to impose a penalty on the unfortunate person suffering the disease and at the same time bring the marriage to an end.
This matter is worthy of consideration and, with respect to the sponsor, who is adhering loyally to the Royal Commission, which I tried to do—although he did not do so earlier on—I suggest that it is reasonable that he should think again. Perhaps the noble Lady could help him to do so.

Lady Tweedsmuir: It might be of some assistance if I were to try to clarify the difference between the meaning of insanity as a defence to divorce for cruelty, and incurable insanity as a ground for divorce.
Certainly in my own mind there was some confusion, and some hon. Members

may share that confusion. The two are quite separate, and the word "insanity" has a different judicial interpretation in each case. In the case of insanity as a defence, the word is used in its normal meaning of mental illness of whatever degree of severity or otherwise, although for the defence to be successful the defender must prove that its effect was to remove his responsibility for his actions, and this could not normally be proved unless the insanity was quite severe.
On the new Clause which we have already discusssed I defined incurable insanity, which is such as to render a person incapable of looking after his affairs in the normal way or of leading a normal married life. Of course, all this would be possible only if he spent five years continuously in hospital under treatment.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) rightly said that he felt that there may be occasions when a particular act of cruelty might have been the result of some sudden outburst, where the person at the time was possibly not responsible for his actions; but he thought that if one added the period of six months that might give time for reflection and calming down, and the person would perhaps have recovered sufficiently for normal married life to be resumed. But one has to remember that although the outburst may have been only of a temporary character, the act of cruelty was committed, and, in terms of legal cruelty, it must have endangered the health of the person against whom the act was committed. Both hon. Gentlemen opposite have not opposed the Clause as a whole. They accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which, in paragraph 256 of its Report, pointed to the various difficulties and expressed the opinion:
In our view, preference should be given to the interests of the injured spouse".
The Clause is drafted to carry out the Royal Commission's recommendation, that insanity should not be a good defence to a charge of cruelty in matrimonial proceedings.
If the hon. Members for Craigton and for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) accept the principle of the Clause, what we have to decide is whether it would


be improved by the Amendment to incorporate the six months' limitation. I must tell the House that, from the point of view of carrying out the purpose of the Royal Commission's recommendation, the length of the period is not relevant. What is relevant is that the victim, whichever spouse it is, has suffered cruelty to such an extent that he or she is justified in having the remedy of divorce. For this reason, I suggest to the House that the length of the period does not alter the substance of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and I think that the Clause would be best left as it is.
11.0 p.m.
While we are discussing this Clause, I should like to take the opportunity to set the record straight. In Committee, in answer to the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), I said something which was not totally correct. The right hon. Gentleman had asked what consultation had taken place with the legal profession about the Bill. I replied:
The Lord Advocate showed the Bill to the Lord President, who consulted the judges of the Court of Session. They did not suggest that there should be any amendment made".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th July, 1964; c. 117.]
This was the information which I had received, but it was only in part correct. While the Lord Advocate showed the Bill to the Lord President, he did not consult the judges of the Court of Session. The Lord President himself did not suggest that any amendment should be made. I have explained this by letter to the right hon. Gentleman, but I wished to set the record straight as I had no wish—I did so only unwittingly—to mislead either him or the Committee at the time.

Mr. Ross: This is a Clause which gave us a certain amount of trouble in Committee. We had a discussion lasting about one and a half hours, starting at about 9.45 and finishing just after 11 o'clock. Unfortunately, shortly before that, I nipped out for a cup of tea, and, when I came back, such had been the progress on the Bill, I found that hon. Members had changed the rules in relation to the definition of cruelty in Scots law. We must bear that in mind in respect of this Clause.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) will remember that I was very concerned about this matter. On the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we raised it as a specific issue, and, after considerable debate, the hon. Gentleman was persuaded that there was something in what we suggested. He will remember that he said:
The hon. Gentleman knows that I always endeavour to be courteous to him "—
He lost his temper two or three times that night, but, by the time we rose, it was after 2 o'clock in the morning, so we can understand that. He went on to say:
I am also impressed by the argument about the advance of medical science and I undertake to consider the whole matter afresh by Report and to take medical advice upon it ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th July, 1964; c. 233–4.]
I do not know whether he has taken medical advice. As far as I can see, he has been taking legal advice on it. It seems to me that, despite our having made certain changes, many of them beneficial, we have not taken sufficient care to keep the balance right.
The assumption in some of the arguments of the hon. Lady was that the pursuer is always right. There is a defence. The hon. Lady may well be looking at the matter from the view of a "poor, frail woman". Some women are not always quite so frail. It is at present a defence to cruelty—and cruelty must be malicious, aimed, deliberate and knowingly cruel—to say that at the material time the person was insane in the proper meaning of the word that the person was out of his mind—in other words, that he did not know what he was doing and, therefore, could not be cruel within the interpretation of cruelty.
Is it a reasonable defence that at a particular time—it may be one instance, something that lasted only an hour or lasted a week—a person was insane? Thereafter, he might be cured. That was the point we made. It was the vagueness about the material time and the admission that within this context insanity meant curable insanity. The person concerned might never have another such outbreak. Should we accept it in that case to deprive that person, who wants to maintain the marriage, of the defence that at the material time he was not incurably


insane, but insane? We still leave it to the court to decide. It is only a defence. We are not still denying the right of the pursuer to prove the case.
We have heard from the hon. Lady about how good, just, all-seeing and all-wise the Scottish courts are in other matters of procedure. Then why make this change? Why disturb the balance, which is what it comes to, and at a time when, more than ever, we are recognising how foolish we have been in the past in our attitudes to mental illness. The mind is part of the body and as the body gets into states of disrepair, there may well be occasions when the mind does, too.
The arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) are eminently sensible. I commend him for putting down the Amendment. I had certain preoccupations between spray irrigation and a few other items that we have been discussing. English Members will appreciate that we started this morning at half-past ten in the Scottish Grand Committee and, as somebody says, we are no' finished yet. My hon. Friend put down the Amendment. That showed his concern. We showed our concern in Committee. I had been hoping that it would not be necessary to put down an Amendment and that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West would put down a much more sweeping Amendment to take out the whole subsection.
If the hon. Member wants, on reflection, to do that, I am sure that, even at this stage, he could put forward a manuscript Amendment. We had manuscript Amendments flowing all over the Committee Room during that night in Committee. I must admit that the weakness in my hon. Friend's Amendment is the one which he himself admitted about whether six months is right. The hon. Member could, by such an Amendment, at least restore a certain balance. I am not entirely happy about it, but it would be better than nothing and better than completely depriving a defendant of a defence which hitherto has been available. I do not think that it has caused hardship.
I am sure that there have not been hundreds of letters flowing to the hon. Lady. There certainly have not been to me. I had a letter, not from the Lord

Advocate, but written on the typewriter and by the typist he shares with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West. I had a letter from the hon. Gentleman about this. Frankly, I did not understand it. For a minute I was unfair to him. I thought he had written it himself. But I have come to the conclusion that it was the Lord Advocate's typist who must have written it. It did not convince me.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could recapture the mood of generosity that he had at 11 o'clock that night, reconsider the Amendment and accept it, because it saves part of the situation. If he has been further convinced, perhaps he will ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and say that he himself will put forward a manuscript Amendment—I am sure that in the generous mood in which the House is, Mr. Deputy-Speaker would accept it—in order to restore the balance. What the hon. Gentleman is at present doing is wrong and unfair, and I am very sorry that he himself has not, on reconsideration, seen fit to table an Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: If I may speak again by leave of the House, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has made what would be a most excellent speech on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" in Committee, but he seems to have misunderstood the whole point of the Amendment. As I said earlier, we must weigh up here the advantage to an insane defender or the advantage to an innocent victim. The Royal Commission decided that the balance of advantage should be with the innocent victim. If we accept, as the hon. Gentleman seems to accept, the view expressed by the Royal Commission—

Mr. Millan: I did not mention the Royal Commission.

Mr. Hendry: —that we ought to look to the innocent victim, then we must be logical about it, and it does not seem to be logical to put a time limit on the period of insanity. Whether the insanity is permanent or temporary seems beside the point. I am afraid that I am still unconvinced and must resist the Amendment.

Mr. Millan: I am very disappointed at the attitude of the noble Lady the


Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). When I originally moved the Amendment, I never pretended that it was the perfect solution to the dilemma. There are a number of different ways in which this could be done. All I am concerned about is that a certain protection should be given to the insane defender or a defender who was insane at one time and has subsequently become sane at the time of the action or perhaps well before that time. It should not be beyond the wit of the draftsmen to produce a safeguard. It could be done by means of stating a period or in a number of ways. It is unfortunate that we are discussing the matter in this context when it is extremely difficult to produce, at this late stage, different suggestions about how a particular end can be brought about.
I am not against the general principle of the subsection. Frankly, I am not terribly concerned with what the Royal Commission said on this. Before I tabled the Amendment I had not read what the Royal Commission had said on this, and so I started with no preconceived ideas on how we should go about it. I feel that we have now got it slightly wrong in the opposite direction to what it was, and I am sure that this was not necessary. I do not suppose that there is anything that we can do about it now, but I do not feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS OF COURT TO AWARD ALIMENT.)

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave out "interim".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will probably be convenient to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in line 30, to leave out "interim".

Mr. Millan: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; the next Amendment goes with this one.
This Clause is concerned with a new power to the courts to grant aliment. I think that I am right in saying that the present position in Scotland has been that

there has not been a single separate right to grant aliment. It has been necessary for an action for aliment to be attached to some other kind of action, so that one could in fact have an action for aliment with adherence or for aliment and separation, but it was not possible to have an action for aliment per se.
This has given rise to a rather unsatisfactory situation where, particularly in an interim period before a deserted wife, for example, has raised some kind of permanent action, it would have been desirable for her to get some kind of interim payment from her husband.
I am, therefore, again agreed in principle that this Clause is desirable, that we should introduce this remedy of aliment per se without attaching it to any other kind of permanent action. But it did strike me when this Clause was going through Committee—and I raised the point then—that it was rather an important innovation in our Scottish law and that we were entitled to be absolutely clear as to exactly what we were doing.
I therefore raised the point I have just mentioned, whether this was a completely new proposal or not. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) then gave me an inaccurate answer which was partly, or perhaps wholly, corrected by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Anderson), who pointed out that this was, in fact, an entirely new remedy and not necessarily a remedy for aliment in anticipation of a subsequent permanent action either for separation or divorce.
If that is so, we really have got a very considerable innovation in the law of Scotland, because we now have got a provision which provides for permanent aliment without the pursuer taking any further action either for divorce or for judicial separation.
It seems to me to be misleading to describe this as interim aliment. It is not at all. It is simply aliment—it is permanent aliment, not temporary aliment at all.
I have a letter from the hon. Gentleman for Aberdeenshire, West in which he admits this. He says:
I think that I may have been slightly misleading in suggesting that aliment under this Clause was temporary pending some more permanent form of action.


He goes on:
There will be other cases where no such substantive action will be taken and the award will remain in force until desertion ceases or just cause for living in separation is removed; that is of genuine reform of the other spouse's conduct.
But, of course, the other spouse may never reform at all, and, therefore, the interim aliment becomes permanent aliment.
The hon. Gentleman tells me in this letter, in language which I do not pretend to understand, particularly at this time of night, that it is still necessary to call permanent aliment interim aliment because of some intricacies in the law of Scotland. I find it very difficult to accept that. The purpose of my Amendment is simply to leave the word "aliment" without qualifying it by either "temporary", "permanent", or "interim". If we remove the word "interim" from this Clause we have got a Clause which is no longer misleading. It may be slightly misleading, but slight ambiguity seems to me preferable to a completely misleading clause, which we have got at the present time.
In spite of these difficulties and intricacies in the law of Scotland, I see no reason why we should not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has given a very fair resumé of the Clause and the intentions of the Amendments. I cannot accept the Amendments, for the very good reason that the aliment with which we are concerned is, indeed, interim. Aliment of this sort will be awarded when the relations between the parties are unresolved. The award may last a very long time, perhaps for ever, but the aliment is interim in that it lasts only until the relations between the parties are resolved by some other action, or some other event.
For instance, parties might be living in separation and aliment might be paid, but the separation might be resolved by an action for divorce on the ground of desertion. It might be resolved by reconciliation, which is very desirable. It might be resolved by the pursuer in the action for interim aliment refusing a genuine and responsible offer by the guilty party to adhere.
This is certainly interim aliment and it is very desirable to call it that and to distinguish it from aliment of other sorts which are perfectly clearly and distinctly understood in Scottish legal practice. I am sorry that at an earlier stage I may have unwittingly misled the hon. Gentleman. It was certainly unintentional and I have done my best to put it right. I hope that I have persuaded him that this aliment will be interim.

Amendment negatived.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not give a long dissertation on the Bill. It had no less than 15½ hours' discussion in Committee and it has had further discussion tonight. It clears up a number of anomalies and difficulties in the law of Scotland and introduces a valuable new feature to facilitate reconciliation where a marriage is in jeopardy. If the Bill does nothing more than save one marriage, it will have been worth all the trouble taken with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

AIRPORTS (AIRCRAFT NOISE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: I must, first, apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Officers of the House for raising this matter at this very late hour and for the inconvenience which that causes. I can only console myself with the knowledge that the inconvenience which we are suffering here tonight in discussing the Wilson Report on Noise is a good deal less than that inconvenience suffered by my constituents, and those of other hon. Members with constituencies around London Airport, every night as a result of jet take-offs and landings.
Although this is not within the prerogative of the Parliamentary Secretary, I


begin by expressing my view that it is disgraceful that a report so comprehensive as the Wilson Report, presented to Parliament more than 12 months ago, should not have been debated in the House, that in the last 12 months the Government have apparently not had time to consider a Report of this comprehensive nature.
It was produced by a most distinguished committee of highly technically qualified individuals, who spent a very long time in delving into all aspects of noise; and I find it astonishing that the Government has not thought it important enough to bring before the House by way of a full-scale debate. I must add that this omission was not the fault of back benchers, because about 15 of us, led by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), petitioned the Speaker in the hope that we might get the subject debated during either the Easter or Whitsun Adjournment day debates.
However, I hope in this short debate, to remedy to a small extent the omission by referring to those sections of the Wilson Report which deal with noise at airports, and at London Airport, in particular. To begin with, I challenge and absolutely refute the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation earlier this month when, talking of supersonic booms, he said:
In my view, it is something which people will learn to live with… just as they have learned to live over the last 100 years with railways, motor cars, and jet aircraft."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 697, col. 1691, 2nd July, 1964.]
My constituents, and hundreds of thousands of other persons who suffer nightly, at the worst possible time, do not accept that statement so far as they are concerned.
How serious is this interference and suffering? We have, as a result of the Wilson Report, now got the information available to help us challenge such statements. In paragraph 306, on page 76 of the Report, in a section headed "Actions Which Could be Taken at London (Heathrow) Airport", the Committee reported:
We are agreed that the noise to which many people near London (Heathrow) Airport are subjected is more than they can reasonably be expected to tolerate".

Strong words indeed. How many people are actually concerned we can find on page 216, which shows the distribution over noise levels of the total population, and what are termed "the seriously annoyed" in that population. Out of a total population of 1,400,000 adults living within a radius of 10 miles of the aerodrome, 378,000 are "seriously annoyed" by jet noise at night; and I would underline the fact that, previously, we have had to guess at the figure. I personally have put it at half a million. That could well be not far wrong, for a reason I will give later, but the figures given in the Report are based on a comprehensive, personal survey carried out by the Central Office of Information, whose investigators constructed a new index which defines the total noise exposure which causes annoyance, the Noise and Number Index. I cannot deal with this in detail because of the time available to me, but I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will know all about it.
The survey took into account the subjective nature of the recipients so that, so far as it is possible to get at the truth about severe disturbance by noise, we now know what is the position around London Airport. The only comment I make on that part of the Wilson Report is that the survey was carried out for it in September, 1961, which was a period when the big jet aircraft were only just beginning to land and take off at London Airport. This fact was referred to when hon. Members, including myself, debated this subject on 11th April, 1963. In 1960, a few Comet 4 jets were allowed to land, and the Financial Times in November of that year, reported that if the Minister got many more complaints about them he would not allow them to continue—but that only indicates how bad can be a forecast.
It was in 1961 that the trouble really began to grow, and a resolution was then sent to the Minister from the Airport Consultative Committee asking for a ban on all jet take-off flights between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m.
By 1962 during the season there were more than 3,000 movements, 1,500 landings and 1,500 take-offs. Next year, 1963, the number is under 4,800—take-offs and landings. This year more than 5,000 night jet flights have been permitted. The survey in September,


1961 was at the beginning of that disturbance, and it must be very much worse now because the number of movements is very much greater.
My first plea is that we should have a new systematic survey now, three years after the last one. We should have a new survey, scientifically conducted by the organisation which did it so fairly and so well before, so that we can know the present position. Even in 1961, at the period when jets had just been introduced, the report came to the conclusion that 370,000 people were being seriously annoyed. It is much worse now.
My second point is that the Minister's present levels of noise at the control points are still too high. They are 110 perceived noise decibels by day, and 102 by night. What does this mean? If we translate this into sound pressure levels, 102 perceived noise decibels at night, as defined by the noise report, measured on sound level meter with A weighting, are equal to 89 decibels—I use dBA to distinguish the two forms—and that is louder than the noise from an unmuffled pneumatic concrete breaker at 50 feet. This is shown in paragraph 411 of the Report as having a dBA rating of only 85.
The mathematics are such that the higher one goes, the greater the intensity by the square. The fact is that the Minister is allowing a noise level over people's houses, particularly near London, which is 59 per cent. louder than the noise of an unmuffled pneumatic concrete breaker at 50 feet. It is no wonder that people who live, not only immediately within the control points and who have the worst of the burden, but those within a radius of 10 miles, not only quarrel with the Minister's statement about getting used to jet noise, but believe that they are being subjected to an intolerable interference with their lives at night.
We—and when I say "we" I mean the residents' associations and many others who have studied the problem—believe that not only should there be a new survey, and that the Minister should look at the noise levels he now permits at night because they are far more than people should have to experience, but that there should be a new survey in which the control points, and the areas

within the control points, are mapped on the sound maps.
It is curious that the Wilson Report, excellent as it is, leaves out from the noise and number contours down on the map an area in my constituency of Hayes and Harlington where there are about 1,500 houses. The noise and number contours are not marked for that area. I think that in the next survey we must have these contours marked throughout, because there are people who live within the control points and who are subject to a worse degree of noise than the average of 378,000 to which I have referred.
The noise maps at page 219 also leave out Sipson, Harmondsworth, Longford, Colnbrook and New Bedfont, all of which are hamlets or villages within the control points and where a number of people live. We know that as many as 22,000 people are living within the control points and having no protection because they are at the stage before the restrictions on engine power and noise come into operation.
I hope that the Ministry will consider seriously the recommendations put forward by the 14 residents' associations in the spring of this year. We have already said that we believe that the noise control levels permitted are too high especially at night. There is much to be said for their progressive reduction, over a period of time, as is mentioned in paragraph 645 of the Report. If the Ministry does not set a decrease in targets nothing will be done about this. We think that it should apply to landings as well as take-offs.
Something could still be done by imposing a ban on jet take-offs for a period during the night, when there would be some quiet for residents. The associations have asked for a ban from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. This may be too much to expect. I would settle for a shorter period, but at any rate there should be an opportunity for uninterrupted sleep for four or five hours. As Mr. Justice Veale said in the Halsey v. Esso Petroleum case, a man is entitled to be able to sleep undisturbed in his bed at night. The House took this right away from those people who live in houses near the airport, and that is why hon. Members who represent them must not be afraid of putting their case.
There is also the recurring problem of the smell from the fuel used by jet aircraft. That is outside the subject of this debate, but I mention it because it is an annoyance. I hope that the possibility of using cross-winds in take-offs will continue to be investigated by the Ministry. Many reasons have been given why this cannot be done, but I am unconvinced by them. When the wind is blowing away from a certain part of the Airport, if the runway near the houses can be used the noise has to travel across the whole width of the airport before it reaches any houses on the other side and so it causes far less disturbance to people living near the airport. I have been assured chat technically this can be done, and I hope that eventually it will.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to paragraph 288 of the Report, which deals with new types of engine. We know that the new by-pass engine can produce the same power with half the noise, and this factor must be taken into account when we are settling the nuisance level, otherwise we shall be getting more and more power with the same degree of noise nuisance. What we want over a period is to get the noise level down below the present limit, which is equivalent to a concrete breaker at 50 feet coming over one's head. The VC10 is one of the noisiest aircraft at London Airport, having taken the place of the Caravelle, which was bad enough. This reinforces my point that the Minister's levels are much too high.
Even in the United States of America we find that only 33 out of every 100 flights are made by night. Comparatively few people fly at night—and it is usually not because they want to, but because it is cheaper. I do not believe that the commercial factors which are involved are such that some peace in the night cannot be arranged for my constituents and the constituents of other Members in the area. The way in which we handle noise problems is a reflection on the type of civilisation in which we live. Financial considerations must not be the only ones which are taken into account. I hope that this generation will not become known in the future as the generation that paid no respect to the sufferings of countless thousands of people living round London Airport, a considerable proportion of whom were there before the airport was constructed.

The values of our civilisation are involved.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am sure that the House was most interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) about his constituency aspect of the problem. No doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will answer those technicalities in some detail.
But I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will not lose sight of the fact that the Wilson Report on Noise was a most significant document, that this is a much wider subject and that the Government have great responsibility to the population for dealing with the problem of noise. The stress due to noise and other factors has a considerable effect on people's lives.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I support what was said by both the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) and the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). In Heston and Isle-worth, the Wilson Report has, by and large, been a big disappointment. It was hoped that much more would follow from it than has, in fact, been the case. At this time of the year the noise of aeroplanes at night becomes particularly aggravating. People sleep with their windows open in the warm weather and not only the noise of aeroplanes flying, but the noise of engines being run up at night, becomes intolerable.
I do not suggest that the Minister has not done all that he can, but I feel that more needs to be done, with much greater control of the taking off and landing of aeroplanes as well as of the running up of engines at night. In particular, will my hon. Friend tell me which Government Department regards itself as being liable to read the Wilson Report and to take some action on it, because it seems that only the Ministry of Aviation does anything in this respect, and, therefore, very little has been done about the sound proofing of buildings, and not nearly enough for hospitals and schools.
I strongly support what the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said


about a noise-free period at night. This is essential to people who live around the airport. I should be glad if the Minister would tell me whether there is any chance of Stansted Aerodrome being opened, because until the pressure can be relieved at London Airport the situation will not be ameliorated for the local people.

11.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. Neil Marten): May I tell the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) how pleased I am that even at this late hour he has raised this subject. It is no inconvenience to me, and it is right that this subject should be raised in the House from time to time. It should be kept before Parliament and before the public. Apart from anything else, this is very much a constituency matter and the fact that he has raised it tonight is also a spur to those who are working so hard to try to reduce the noise of jets. We all realise that it is an extremely difficult problem to solve.
Noise worries many people. How many, it is difficult to assess. I take note of what the hon. Member said about having a fresh look at the numbers involved, and I am grateful for his suggestions. About this time last year I spent the night at London Airport in a small house practically at the end of the runway. I went up to my bedroom at midnight, did about an hour's work in bed on papers, went to sleep at 1 a.m. and slept through to 7.30 a.m. A reporter, who wanted to hear my reactions beforehand and again afterwards, slept in a similar room next door—this was a row of houses—with his windows open, exactly as I had, and he told me that he did not sleep a wink all night. This is a very simple example of how noise affects one person and not another. I had done a hard day's work—I am not suggesting that the reporter had not—and I slept very soundly, except once when the bed clothes fell off.
As I have said, many have come to live with this noise. Many to whom I have spoken have come to accept the noise around London Airport. That does not mean that others have not

accepted it. Complaints must be one yardstick, and they have been declining. In 1960, we had 1,212 complaints and last year we had 545. It is also relevant—it may be unkind to say so—that properties in the vicinity of London Airport have maintained their value compared with houses in other areas.
What is being done about the problem? Paragraph 308 of the Wilson Report said that we should try to explain the facts about airport noise to residents, and in the Ministry of Aviation we have produced the pamphlet, "Quietening the Jet", which has been widely circulated to groups of people, and to local authorities and others who are concerned. In addition, we have a "Noise Caravan", which this spring and summer has been visiting the areas which suffer from noise, explaining to interested people what noise means, what we are trying to do to eliminate it and how they can sound proof their homes on a do-it-yourself basis.
On the question of numbers of night flights, as the hon. Gentleman said, in 1962 there were 3,000 movements permitted. In 1963, the figure was 4,800 and this year it was 5,500. It should be realised that the airlines asked for substantially more than these figures, but my right hon. Friend did not allow them to have all that they wanted.
The figure for this year was approved on condition that the increase of 700 over the figure for the previous year should be offset by a reduction of 700 movements by noisy piston engined aircraft. The overall effect is expected to be that the total amount of noise will not be greatly different in the summer of this year compared with that of 1963. About one-fifth of the movements are expected to occur in the last half-hour of the night period, which is getting some way towards one of the solutions which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposed.
The hon. Member also mentioned the level of noise at London Airport. He asked us to consider this matter again. I can tell him that we will be reviewing afresh at the end of this summer the recommendations made by the Wilson Committee about reducing the noise limits at Heathrow and the introduction of lower limits for those aircraft which can operate more quietly. He


mentioned the by-pass engine, which is one of the developments into which we shall be looking. It is necessary to collect more data before we can form a properly considered view on these difficult questions. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that careful note has been taken of his suggestions.
I would like to make it clear that the pilots are already operating their aircraft as quietly as possible, and records show that the vast majority are operating at well below the maximum permitted noise levels. We shall continue to exercise close supervision over the number of night jet operations. The figures show that they are indeed obeying our regulation noise levels. For May, 1964, the latest date for which complete figures are available, in the day time, with 3,273 take-offs. 99·69 per cent. complied with the noise regulations. At night, with 268 take-offs, the compliance rate was 99·6 per cent., a very high observance figure indeed. In respect of height observance, of 610 monitored cases, the compliance figure was 99·7 per cent., a substantial figure indeed.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to cross-winds. This is a complicated subject which I cannot develop now. I will write to him about it. He also mentioned the VC10. We are now discussing with B.O.A.C. and B.A.C. the question of fitting some silencers which, we hope, will, if it works out, reduce the noise, remembering that the VC10 noise is slightly different from the noise from other aircraft. It is, perhaps, because of this difference that the noise is drawn to the attention of people.
Also on the positive side, a great deal of effort is going into the subject of noise suppression at source. The Ministry, in its research establishments, and others, are engaged on this problem. This is all described at some length in the pamphlet "Quietening the Jet". Further improvements may come about from the development of the so-called plug nozzle system for the rear propulsive parts of new engine systems. The Ministry of Aviation National Gas Turbine Establishment is working energetically on this problem, in particular with a view to the possible application of the system to the Olympus 593 engines for the Concord.
Further work is being done on the problem of dipol noise—the technical term applied to the effect of noise radiation from surfaces adjoining jets. This is a new area which the National Gas Turbine Establishment is investigating with care. However, it would be wrong for me to hold out any hope at this stage of a dramatic break-through in the subject. Nor would it be right for me to speak in any detail of these developments because they are of great commercial significance and, therefore, commercial security is involved. All I can say is that both in Government establishments and in industry our efforts towards achieving quieter engines will in no way slacken and by patient and intelligent research work I hope that we may gradually achieve improvement.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington took me to task for my remarks on this subject of "learning to live with the sonic bang ", as it was then the subject of debate on 2nd July. He, like The Times and others, took my remarks completely out of context. The Times, pontifically, accused me of "complacency to a degree". I cannot imagine how anybody who read what I said on 2nd July could say that we had been complacent, because I said that we had done a tremendous amount of work on the sonic bang. It is going on all the time and we are considering with our French partners in the Concord project whether to do still more extensive tests to improve our knowledge of this phenomenon. But even before these tests were carried out people were inclined to jump to conclusions, and it was my view that they would learn to live with the jets.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to what Sir Isaac Coffin, the hon. Member for Ilchester said in the House in 1826 on the occasion of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill:
…Was the House aware of the smoke and the noise, the hiss and the whirl which locomotive engines, passing at the rate of ten or twelve miles an hour, would occasion? Neither the cattle ploughing in the fields or grazing in the meadows could behold them without dismay. Lease-holders and tenants, agriculturists, graziers and dairy-men would all be in arms. …It would be the greatest nuisance, the most complete disturbance of quiet and comfort in all parts of the Kingdom that the ingenuity of man could invent.
That was the comment in the House of Commons on the new-fangled rail-


ways which were coming in, but I said in the debate on 2nd July that people, to my mind, had come to live with them as I think that the great majority of people have learned to live with jet aircraft. But that does not imply to my mind that they like it any more than they like the noise of the railway engine or the motor car, nor that a minority have not learned to live with it.
Much as I should like to go on with the subject, I feel that I have said enough and if there are any questions outstanding I will answer them by letter to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Mr. Skeffington: On the subject of the railway engine, the sufferers did not have a Royal Commission or a Departmental Committee's report like the Wilson Report, which said that 378,000 of them were having to bear more disturbance and noise than was reasonable. Surely that is a vast difference. The

hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of complaints. The Wilson Report says, in paragraph 220, that the number of complaints is no indication of the amount of disturbance. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman's Department realises that 378,000 people were seriously annoyed. I hope, therefore, that he will not judge the degree of suffering purely by the number of complaints.

Mr. Marten: I would not dream of doing that. I merely said that it is just one of the several yardsticks which we must use if we are to get a fair balance on the question.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.